Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    United States v. Wooten, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Alonzo Wooten appealed the district court's denial of his motion for specific performance of his plea agreement. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny Wooten's motion for specific performance of his plea agreement, for substantially the same reasons provided by the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Wooten, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    1) Alonzo Wooten appealed the district court's denial of his motion for specific performance of his plea agreement. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny Wooten's motion for specific performance of his plea agreement, for substantially the same reasons provided by the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-01-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-7392

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Alonzo Wooten appealed the district court's denial of his motion for specific performance of his plea agreement. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny Wooten's motion for specific performance of his plea agreement, for substantially the same reasons provided by the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Wooten, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Alonzo Wooten appealed the district court's denial of his motion for specific performance of his plea agreement. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny Wooten's motion for specific performance of his plea agreement, for substantially the same reasons provided by the district court.

    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. 07-7392

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ALONZO N. WOOTEN, a/k/a Cut Wooten,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Jerome B. Friedman,
    District Judge. (4:99-cr-00006-JBF)

    Submitted:

    January 17, 2008

    Decided:

    January 28, 2008

    Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alonzo N. Wooten, Appellant Pro Se.


    Timothy Richard Murphy,
    Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Alonzo N. Wooten appeals the district courts order
    denying his motion for specific performance of his plea agreement.
    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the


    district court. See United States v. Wooten, No. 4:99-cv-00006-JBF
    (E.D. Va. Aug. 22, 2007).

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like