Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    United States v. Blanks, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Gregory Blanks appealed a district court order denying his motion to compel the government to file a Rule 35 motion for a reduced sentence based on his alleged substantial assistance or alternatively for a sentence reduction. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's order denying the motion. The case number is United States v. Blanks, No. 7:04-cr-00076-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 29, 2009).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    United States v. Blanks, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Gregory Blanks appealed a district court order denying his motion to compel the government to file a Rule 35 motion for a reduced sentence based on his alleged substantial assistance or alternatively for a sentence reduction. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's order denying the motion. The case number is United States v. Blanks, No. 7:04-cr-00076-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 29, 2009).

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-07-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6249

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Gregory Blanks appealed a district court order denying his motion to compel the government to file a Rule 35 motion for a reduced sentence based on his alleged substantial assistance or alternatively for a sentence reduction. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's order denying the motion. The case number is United States v. Blanks, No. 7:04-cr-00076-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 29, 2009).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views2 pages

    United States v. Blanks, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Gregory Blanks appealed a district court order denying his motion to compel the government to file a Rule 35 motion for a reduced sentence based on his alleged substantial assistance or alternatively for a sentence reduction. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's order denying the motion. The case number is United States v. Blanks, No. 7:04-cr-00076-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 29, 2009).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-6249

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    GREGORY BLANKS,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at New Bern.
    Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
    District Judge. (7:04-cr-00076-FL-1)

    Submitted:

    July 22, 2010

    Decided:

    July 30, 2010

    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Gregory Blanks, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, OFFICE


    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Gregory

    Blanks

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying his motion to compel the Government to file a Fed. R.


    Crim. P. 35 motion on his behalf, or for a sentence reduction
    based

    upon

    his

    allegedly

    substantial

    assistance.

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.


    we affirm the district courts order.
    No.

    7:04-cr-00076-FL-1

    (E.D.N.C.

    We

    have

    Accordingly,

    United States v. Blanks,

    Dec. 29, 2009).

    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

    You might also like