Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Raphael Mendez, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case from 2014. It summarizes that Raphael Mendez appealed the district court's denial of his motion for free copies of his Annual Supervision Reports and denial of his motion for a transfer. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's rulings. The appeals court decided the case without oral arguments because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-06-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-6668

    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 is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case from 2014. It summarizes that Raphael Mendez appealed the district court's denial of his motion for free copies of his Annual Supervision Reports and denial of his motion for a transfer. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's rulings. The appeals court decided the case without oral arguments because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Raphael Mendez, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case from 2014. It summarizes that Raphael Mendez appealed the district court's denial of his motion for free copies of his Annual Supervision Reports and denial of his motion for a transfer. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's rulings. The appeals court decided the case without oral arguments because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-6668

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Petitioner - Appellee,
    v.
    RAPHAEL MENDEZ,
    Respondent - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    W. Earl Britt, Senior
    District Judge. (5:91-hc-00350-BR)

    Submitted:

    June 26, 2014

    Decided:

    June 30, 2014

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Raphael Mendez, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Dee Dannels, FEDERAL


    MEDICAL CENTER, Butner, North Carolina; Robert Jack Dodson,
    Special
    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Raleigh,
    North
    Carolina; David T. Huband, BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North
    Carolina; Michael Lockridge, Special Assistant United States
    Attorney, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Raphael

    Mendez

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    orders

    denying his motion for free copies of his Annual Supervision


    Reports and denying his motion for a transfer.
    the record and find no reversible error.
    for

    the

    reasons

    stated

    by

    the

    district

    We have reviewed

    Accordingly, we affirm
    court.

    See

    United

    States v. Mendez, No. 5:91-hc-00350-BR (E.D.N.C. Apr. 15, 2014).


    We

    dispense

    contentions

    with
    are

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the

    facts

    and

    the

    materials

    legal
    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like