Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Alexander, 02-7768 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7768 Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 25, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7768 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TONY B. ALEXANDER, Defendant - Appellant. No. 03-6234 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TONY B. ALEXANDER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-95-178) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7768 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TONY B. ALEXANDER, Defendant - Appellant. No. 03-6234 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TONY B. ALEXANDER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-95-178) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony B. Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tony B. Alexander appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Alexander’s motion for modification of his sentence and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Alexander, No. CR-95- 178 (W.D.N.C., filed Jan. 17, 2003; entered Jan. 21, 2003). 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