Sanchez v. Warden, No. 7:2014cv00645 - Document 2 (W.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 12/8/2014. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
elrD! r ( CyJ ( t . - e & ?7 ( q. , y jg. j COURT D gx ,., . p)< VA k hH, : $ . , r ; I THE UNI S N TED TATES DI TRI COURT S CT PEr 23 2J1 Jo ' t1 0t ' FO R T H E W ESTER N DI STRI T O F V I G I I C R N A RO ANOKE DI SI VI ON R AN D Y SAN CH E Z, . JR , .. . , . , CA SE N O .7: 14CV :0645 Pe ii r, t tone M EM OM NDUM O PI ON NI W ARDEN, By: Gln E.Conrad e Chi fUni e St e Di t i Judge e t d at s s r et R espondent . Ra ndy Sa he J . aVigi a i t pr e ng pr K ,fl t speii f a wrtof nc z, r, r ni nma e oc edi o ied hi tton or i h be sc r us p ru n t 2 U. C. 2 5 , h l n i t e2 1j g n o t Ro kig a a a o p , u s a t o 8 S. j 2 4 c al gng h 01 ud me t f he c n h m e Count Cic tCom' unde whih he smndsc ced ofmur ra r l td tr n ms o f es y r ui t r c f onvit de nd e ae i e r fens a s e d t lf i prs Upon r viw oft r or t c tc udest tt peii nd entnce o ie n ion. e e he ec d, he our oncl ha he tton mus besl rl ds se wi u p eudc f rfiu et e h u tsaee u t e d e . t l mmaiy imis d t t rj ie o alr o x a s tt o r rme is ho Un e 28 U. C.j 2 4 1 a f d rlc u tc n o g a ta h b a p tto t e st dr S. 25 (9, e ea o r a n t rn a e s eiin mls he pe ii r has e use t r m e es a ia e i t c t of t s e i whi h he wa ttone xha t d he e di val bl n he ours he it n c s con c e The e usi r uie e i s tsi by s e ng r viw oft c am s t oug vit d. xha ton eq r m nt s a ited e ki e e he l i , hr hout t e sae c u ts se t te hg e tsaec ur wihjzidcin t c n ie t e cams S e h tt o r y tm, o h ih s tt o t t l s ito o o sd r h li . e r O' lva v.Boec ,526 U. 8 845 ( 999) I Vigi a at hi c cton i t til Suli n rkel S. 38, 1 . n r ni, fer s onvi i n he ra cott t de e nt c n fl a die t a a t t Co t of Appe s of Vigi w wih a u he f nda a ie r c ppe l o he ur al r ni t s e nt a pe t t Su e Cour of Vigi a As t cai s t t ge r l cn t be ubs que p al o he pr me t r ni . o l m ha ne aly nno Sanchez v. Warden Doc. 2 addr s ed on a es ppea ,s h as cai of i fe tve a ssanc ofti c m s l t de e l uc l ms ne f c i s it e ral ot e , he f ndan ' ts sa e c tr m e e i Vigi a i l tlng a sa e ha a pe ii wih t Cic t Co t tt our e di s n r ni nc ude ii t t be s tton t he r ui ur whe ehewa c ce wih a a a ofa adve s de son t t Supr me Cour ofVigi a, r s onvi td, t n ppe l n re cii o he e t r ni Va.CodeAnn.j 8. - 4( ( ) j 1 1411 o i t atr tve,flng asaeha aspeii 0165 A)1; 7.- , r n he lenai ii tt be tton Dockets.Justia.com c Rx diecl wiht SuprmeCour ofVigi a. j8. - 4( ( ) hihe rr ut hef l i r ty t he e t r ni 0165 A)1.W c ve o e olows n e usi sae c tr di s a de e ntmus uli el pr s nthi cli t t Supr m e xha tng t t our eme e , f nda t tmat y e e s a ms o he e Cour of Vigi a be ox a f er l ditit c tc c i r t m e is of hi ca ms t r t r ni f e ed a src our an onsde he rt s li mde j2254. I t sj2254 peii Sa hezaleg t thi tilc e wasi feci i vai n hi tton, nc l es ha s ra ouns l nef tve n rous r s c s be or a afe hi g lypla. Sa hezi c t son hi pe ii t the di nota e pe t , f e nd tr s uit e nc ndia e s tton ha d ppea l hi c ci ors e a t theha ne rfl ape ii f ram i ofha asc us St e s onvi ton entnce nd ha s ve ied tton o t be om . at c tr c ds a ia e o i a e c it nt wih t e satm e s Be a e t s r cor our e or va lbl nlne r onsse t hes t e nt . c us he e e ds i c t t Sa he has notpr e e hi c r ntcam s t any sae co ti a pe ii f a ndi a e hat nc z es nt d s ur e li o t t ur n tton or wrtofha msc us t a o it l ga ve cl by whi h he ma o di rl do s he ha not i be om , he ppr pra e e l hi e c y r na iy o, s y te h use a alb esaec u t e de a rq ie u d rj2 5 49. Theeo e t i c u t e x a td v ia l tt o r r me is s e ur d n e 2 4 1 rf r , h s o r 1 mus d s s h sj2 5 p tto wih u prj d c . S e S a tn v.S t 4 4 U. 5 ,5 t imis i 2 4 eiin t o t eu ie e lvo mi 0 S. 3 4 h, (97 )(i dngt a j2 4h b a peio mu tb d s se wih u prj iei peiin rh s 1 1 fn i h t 25 a e s t in s e imisd t o t eudc f tto e a t n tp ee td h scamst te a p o rae sae c u ta d c u d sild s ) An a p o rae o r sn e i li o h p r p it tt o r n o l tl o o . p r p it or rwili s t sda de l s ue hi y. The Clr i die t d t s nd copi of t s m e a l o ni a a co pa ng e k s rce o e es hi mor ndlm pi on nd c m nyi or rt pe ii ne . de o tto r ENTER :Ths EM d yo De e r2 4 i a f cmbe, 01 . ChifUnie St t sDititJ e t d a e src udge 1 The c ourtnot t t even i Sa z had e used hi s e cour r edi , hi cur e es ha f nche xha t s Ot t em es s r nt peii a pe r t b u i y fld u e 28 U. C.j22 4( a woud be ds s e o ta ba i, tton p a s o e ntmel i nd r e S. 4 *, nd l imis d n h t ss unl she coul s gr es d how oundsf t lng. or oli 2
]]>
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.
