Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    United States v. Bullock, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding United States v. Joseph Bullock. The court affirmed the district court's order granting specific performance as the remedy for the government's breach of its plea agreement with Bullock. The court found that district courts have discretion in choosing a remedy for a breach of a plea agreement. It also found that the timing and context of Bullock's request to vacate his plea agreement weakened his argument that the court should have deferred to his preference for rescission over specific performance. The court examined the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Bullock, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    31 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding United States v. Joseph Bullock. The court affirmed the district court's order granting specific performance as the remedy for the government's breach of its plea agreement with Bullock. The court found that district courts have discretion in choosing a remedy for a breach of a plea agreement. It also found that the timing and context of Bullock's request to vacate his plea agreement weakened his argument that the court should have deferred to his preference for rescission over specific performance. The court examined the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-10-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-4227

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding United States v. Joseph Bullock. The court affirmed the district court's order granting specific performance as the remedy for the government's breach of its plea agreement with Bullock. The court found that district courts have discretion in choosing a remedy for a breach of a plea agreement. It also found that the timing and context of Bullock's request to vacate his plea agreement weakened his argument that the court should have deferred to his preference for rescission over specific performance. The court examined the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    31 views3 pages

    United States v. Bullock, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding United States v. Joseph Bullock. The court affirmed the district court's order granting specific performance as the remedy for the government's breach of its plea agreement with Bullock. The court found that district courts have discretion in choosing a remedy for a breach of a plea agreement. It also found that the timing and context of Bullock's request to vacate his plea agreement weakened his argument that the court should have deferred to his preference for rescission over specific performance. The court examined the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    JOSEPH BULLOCK,
    Defendant-Appellant.

    No. 02-4227

    Appeal from the United States District Court


    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
    (CR-98-133)
    Submitted: October 17, 2002
    Decided: October 29, 2002
    Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    COUNSEL
    Craig W. Sampson, LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG W. SAMPSON, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael Cornell Wallace, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    UNITED STATES v. BULLOCK

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph Bullock appeals the district courts order on remand granting specific performance as the remedy for the United States breach
    of its plea agreement with him. In a brief filed by counsel pursuant
    to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),* Bullock argues the district court should have deferred to his preference of rescission in
    selecting a remedy. We disagree.
    Bullock contends the concurring opinions in Santobello v. New
    York, 404 U.S. 257, 263 (1971), indicate a district court should consider the defendants preference in selecting a remedy for a breach of
    a plea agreement. Based on our review of the record and the relevant
    case law, however, we find this contention unpersuasive. Courts consistently confer upon district courts unfettered discretion in selecting
    a remedy for a breach of a plea agreement. See, e.g., United States v.
    Jureidini, 846 F.2d 964, 965-66 (4th Cir. 1988). Furthermore, we find
    the timing and context of Bullocks request to vacate his plea agreement attenuates his reliance on those concurring opinions. See Santobello, 404 U.S. at 267, 268. Nor do we find other error in the district
    courts finding that Bullock was entitled only to specific performance
    of his plea agreement.
    We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with
    the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts order granting specific performance.
    This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
    right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
    *Bullock was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
    but he has not done so.

    UNITED STATES v. BULLOCK

    review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel


    believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
    move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
    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

    You might also like