Narrative Opinion Summary
James Robert Nance's appeal against the district court's denial of his petition for injunctive relief concerning changes to his presentence report has been affirmed. The appellate court found no reversible error after reviewing the record and upheld the district court's decision for the reasons it provided. Additionally, Nance's request for a government-funded transcript was denied. The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the case facts and legal issues were sufficiently addressed in the submitted materials. The ruling is final and noted as an unpublished opinion, which does not serve as binding precedent in the circuit.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Government-Funded Transcriptsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied Nance's request for a government-funded transcript, indicating no requirement for additional documentation to resolve the appeal.
Reasoning: Additionally, Nance's request for a government-funded transcript was denied.
Injunctive Relief in Sentencing Contextsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court upheld the district court's denial of Nance's petition for injunctive relief regarding changes to his presentence report.
Reasoning: James Robert Nance's appeal against the district court's denial of his petition for injunctive relief concerning changes to his presentence report has been affirmed.
Necessity of Oral Argumentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the case facts and legal issues were sufficiently addressed in the submitted materials.
Reasoning: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the case facts and legal issues were sufficiently addressed in the submitted materials.
Precedential Value of Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ruling is noted as an unpublished opinion, which does not serve as binding precedent in the circuit.
Reasoning: The ruling is final and noted as an unpublished opinion, which does not serve as binding precedent in the circuit.