Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Blount, 00-7563 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7563 Visitors: 25
Filed: Feb. 14, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7563 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHILE ANTHONY BLOUNT, a/k/a Markus Williamson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-94-246) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 14, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7563 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHILE ANTHONY BLOUNT, a/k/a Markus Williamson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-94-246) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 14, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michile Anthony Blount, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michile A. Blount appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel the Government to file a motion under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to reduce his sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Blount, No. CR-94-246 (D.S.C. filed Oct. 11, 2000; entered Oct. 12, 2000). We also deny as un- necessary Blount’s motion for a certificate of appealability. 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer