Filed: Aug. 02, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6826 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARVEL E. BENSON, a/k/a Sam, a/k/a Gene, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-89-136-2) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 2, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carvel E. Bens
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6826 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARVEL E. BENSON, a/k/a Sam, a/k/a Gene, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-89-136-2) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 2, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carvel E. Benso..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6826 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARVEL E. BENSON, a/k/a Sam, a/k/a Gene, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-89-136-2) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 2, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carvel E. Benson, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carvel E. Benson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Benson, No. CA-89-136-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 2002). Benson’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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
