Peyton v. Clarke, No. 7:2013cv00566 - Document 3 (W.D. Va. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 12/10/2013. (kab)

Download PDF
* O Š:OFFI U.8. sm O Ur e CE Dl AT ROANCKE, VA :) . . I TH E U NI N TED STA TES DI STRI T CO UR T C FO R TH E W ESTERN D I STRI T O F V I I I C RG N A R O AN O K E DI VISI N O JACOB D.PEYTON I , V DFC 1 2 1 23 l J A c.. / 2 , ULI !k' JLERK BY; . CASE NO.7: 3CV005 1 66 DP' L K EjY E r R Pe ii r tt one , M EM O M ND U M O PI I N N O V. H A RO LD C LA RK E , I CTO R, D RE By: G l n E.C onrad e C hi fU nie St e D it i tJudge e t d at s s r c R e ponde . s nt J c D.Pe on 1 aVigi a i ae pr e ng pr K ,f l d t s pe ii f a w rtof a ob yt V, r ni nm t oce di o ie hi tton or i . h b a c r us p rua tt 28 U. C.j2 5 ,c aln i g t e M a 2 ,2 0 j d me to t e a e s op , u s n o S. 2 4 h l gn h y 2 0 8 u g n f h e Cic t Coztof Augusa Co y t r whi h he sn convit d of t e c s of gr nd r ui tr t unt mde c t nds ce hr e ount a lr ny a t e c t sofbr akng a e e i a s nt nc t s ve ye r a sx m o hs a ce nd hr e o mt e i nd nt rng, nd e e ed o e n a s nd i nt . The co tfnds t t pe ii mus be sl ma iy dimi s d as s e sve,pur ua t 28 ur i hat he tton t lm rl s s e ucc s i s nt o U .S. j2 4 (9. C. 2 4 1 l Co r r c r sidc t ta Pe o p e iusy fldaj2 5 p tto c n e n t esme u t e o d n iae h t ytn rv o l ie 2 4 ei n o c mig h a i c c i ,Ci lAc i N o.7: 2CV005 onvitons vi ton 1 47. Thus Peyt s c r ntpetton i a s bs ue t , on' ur e ii s u eq n o , al gt e t ep o i to i 2 U. C. 2 4 49 a an tas c ndo s c e sv p tto ne fli md r h r hbi n n 8 S. j 2 4 1 g i s e o r u c s ie eiin. n i Pls a t o j2 4 (9, fd r l itit o r ma c n ie as c n o s c e sv j2 4 t u n t 2 4 1 a e ea dsrc c u t y o sd r e o d r u c s ie 25 r peii onl i pe ii r s c les s cik ce tt a i fom t Unie Stt s Cour ofAppe l tton y f ttone e tr pe t rik ton r he t d ae t as frteF u t Cic it a tecamsi tep tt n me tc ranciei .j2 4 ( ( ) Be a s o h o rh r ut h t h li n h eii o e eti rtra 2 4b)3 . c u e Peyt doesno de ons r t t the has ob a ne s h c r ii to by t Cour ofAppea s t on t m t a e ha t i d uc e tfca i n he t l , he c u twi d s s tep tto wi o tp eu ie a s c e sv . An a p o raeo d rwile tr o r l imis h eiin t u rj dc s u c s ie l h p r p it r e l n e t sda hi y. The Cl k i die t t s nd co es oft s m e a lm o ni n a ac ompa ng er s r ced o e pi hi mor nd l pi o nd c nyi or rt pe ii ne . de o tto r ENTER:Thi t0 & da ofDec mbe 2013. s y e r , Chi U nie St t s D it i tJ ef t d a e s rc udge 1 Un e Rue4b)o t e Ru e Go e n n j 2 5 Ca e , te c u tma s mmai dimisa j2 5 d r l ( f h ls v r i g 2 4 s s h o r y u rl s s y 24 peiinçifipli ya p asfo tep tina da y atc e e hbt ta tep tin ri n te tte t rl f t o çl t anl p er r m h eio n n t h d x ii h t h eio e s o n i d o ei t l t a s t l e i t dititc t' n he src oul '

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.