Filed: Feb. 03, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7487 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HERMAN WOODEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-18; CA-96-1591-A) Submitted: December 19, 2003 Decided: February 3, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herman Wooden, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7487 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HERMAN WOODEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-18; CA-96-1591-A) Submitted: December 19, 2003 Decided: February 3, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herman Wooden, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7487 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HERMAN WOODEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-18; CA-96-1591-A) Submitted: December 19, 2003 Decided: February 3, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herman Wooden, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Herman Wooden appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for post conviction relief and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Wooden leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the decision of the district court because Wooden was not entitled to a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2000) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a) & (c) (2002). 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 -
