United States v. Penland
United States v. Penland
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7069
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARY PENLAND,
Petitioner – Appellant,
and
326 HANSA LANE GREER SC; 4318 EAST NORTH STREET; KENNETH C. ANTHONY, JR.,
Parties-in-interest,
and
CHARLES W. PENLAND, SR.,
Defendant,
and
JERRY SAAD,
Receiver.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (7:05-cr-00710-HFF-1)
Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 4, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Penland, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Brereton Barbier, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2 PER CURIAM:
Mary Penland appeals the district court’s text order
denying her pro se motion to vacate a plea agreement, which the
district court further construed as a challenge to a forfeiture
order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See
United States v. Penland, No. 7:05-cr-00710-HFF-1 (D.S.C. July
1, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished