Filed: Aug. 25, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6499 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BERNARD WEITERS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00987-DCN-1) Submitted: August 20, 2020 Decided: August 25, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Wei
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6499 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BERNARD WEITERS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00987-DCN-1) Submitted: August 20, 2020 Decided: August 25, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Weit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6499 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BERNARD WEITERS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00987-DCN-1) Submitted: August 20, 2020 Decided: August 25, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Weiters, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bernard Weiters, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion, filed pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, for a reduction in his aggregate 420-month sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Weiters, No. 2:09-cr-00987-DCN-1 (D.S.C. Apr. 2, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
