Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-04
Citations: 406 F. App'x 816
Docket Number: No. 10-7069
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 406
Pages: 816–816

Head Matter:
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.
No. 10-7069.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 21, 2010.
Decided: Jan. 4, 2011.
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.
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 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). 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.