Filed: Jun. 03, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6255 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FREDDIE EUGENE WALKER, a/k/a Big Freddie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-95-39) Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 3, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freddie Eugene
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6255 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FREDDIE EUGENE WALKER, a/k/a Big Freddie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-95-39) Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 3, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freddie Eugene ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6255 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FREDDIE EUGENE WALKER, a/k/a Big Freddie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-95-39) Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 3, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freddie Eugene Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Freddie Eugene Walker appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Walker, No. CR-95-39 (E.D. Va. Nov. 25, 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 -
