US v. Mary Penland, No. 10-7069 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7069 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARY PENLAND, Petitioner Appellant, and 326 HANSA LANE GREER SC; 4318 EAST NORTH STREET; KENNETH C. ANTHONY, JR., Parties-in-interest, and CHARLES W. PENLAND, SR., Defendant, and JERRY SAAD, Receiver. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (7:05-cr-00710-HFF-1) Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 4, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Penland, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Brereton Barbier, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Mary Penland appeals the district court s text order denying her pro se motion to vacate a plea agreement, which the district court further construed as a challenge to a forfeiture order. We error. have reviewed the record and find no reversible Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. See United States v. Penland, No. 7:05-cr-00710-HFF-1 (D.S.C. July 1, 2010). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.