US v. Joseph Young

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to reconsider [998873584-2]. Originating case numbers: 2:08-cr-00226-1,2:12-cv-00002. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998907804]. Mailed to: Joseph Young. [12-7000]

Appeal: 12-7000

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/02/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7000

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH PAUL YOUNG,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:08-cr-00226-1; 2:12-cv-00002)

Submitted:

July 26, 2012

Decided:

August 2, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Paul Young, Appellant Pro Se.
Lisa Grimes Johnston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7000

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/02/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Joseph Paul Young appeals the district court’s orders
adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
Young’s motion for appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary
hearing into his allegations that the Government breached his
plea

agreement,

and

denying

Young’s

certificate of appealability.
find

no

reversible

error.

subsequent

motion

for

a

We have reviewed the record and
Accordingly,

reasons stated by the district court.

we

affirm

for

the

United States v. Young,

Nos. 2:08-cr-00226-1; 2:12-cv-00002 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 3, 2012,
May 24, 2012).

We also deny Young’s motion for reconsideration

of the district court’s orders.

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

2