The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
09-8191•United States of America v. Ivan Magdaleno
09-8191Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 5, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8191
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
IVAN MAGDALENO,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 10-6254
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IVAN MAGDALENO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (7:06-cr-00703-GRA-2)
Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 5, 2010
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ivan Magdaleno, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Ivan Magdaleno appeals the district court’s orders
denying his motion for specific performance of his plea
agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b),
his motion for reconsideration of that denial, and his motion to
reopen the case. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Magdaleno, No. 7:06-cr-
00703-GRA-2 (D.S.C. Nov. 9, 2009; Nov. 25, 2009; Jan. 26, 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 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.