Filed: May 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7653 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GUY CARMICHAEL CRENSHAW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-47) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7653 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GUY CARMICHAEL CRENSHAW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-47) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7653 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GUY CARMICHAEL CRENSHAW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-96-47) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Guy Carmichael Crenshaw, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Guy Carmichael Crenshaw appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for modification of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (1994). Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Crenshaw, No. CR-96-47 (W.D. Va. Nov. 13, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
