Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    United States v. Keys, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Darren Keys appealed the district court's denial of his "Motion for Specific Performance of Plea Agreement." The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling. The court noted that if Keys wanted to challenge his 2003 criminal conviction again, he would need authorization to file a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as he cannot collaterally attack his conviction through this appeal. The court dispensed with oral arguments.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Keys, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Darren Keys appealed the district court's denial of his "Motion for Specific Performance of Plea Agreement." The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling. The court noted that if Keys wanted to challenge his 2003 criminal conviction again, he would need authorization to file a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as he cannot collaterally attack his conviction through this appeal. The court dispensed with oral arguments.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-08-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-8547

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Darren Keys appealed the district court's denial of his "Motion for Specific Performance of Plea Agreement." The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling. The court noted that if Keys wanted to challenge his 2003 criminal conviction again, he would need authorization to file a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as he cannot collaterally attack his conviction through this appeal. The court dispensed with oral arguments.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Keys, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Darren Keys appealed the district court's denial of his "Motion for Specific Performance of Plea Agreement." The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling. The court noted that if Keys wanted to challenge his 2003 criminal conviction again, he would need authorization to file a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as he cannot collaterally attack his conviction through this appeal. The court dispensed with oral arguments.

    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. 08-8547

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DARREN L. KEYS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
    (1:98-cr-00144-CCB-1)

    Submitted:

    July 30, 2009

    Decided:

    August 3, 2009

    Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Darren L. Keys, Appellant Pro Se.


    Assistant United States Attorney,
    Appellee.

    Harvey Ellis Eisenberg,


    Baltimore, Maryland, for

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Darren L. Keys appeals the district courts marginal
    order

    denying

    Agreement.
    error.

    his

    Motion

    for

    Specific

    Performance

    of

    Plea

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    Accordingly, we affirm.

    To the extent Keys seeks to

    again contest his 2003 criminal conviction, he would first need


    to obtain authorization from this court to file a successive 28
    U.S.C.A.

    2255

    (West

    Supp.

    2009)

    motion.

    2244(a) (2006); 28 U.S.C.A. 2255(h).

    See

    28

    U.S.C.

    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