Filed: Dec. 21, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6590 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVIN LAMONT SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-17-F) Submitted: November 30, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6590 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVIN LAMONT SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-17-F) Submitted: November 30, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6590 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVIN LAMONT SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-17-F) Submitted: November 30, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Davin Lamont Smith, Appellant Pro Se. David J. Cortes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Davin Lamont Smith appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for modification of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (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. Smith, No. CR-02-17-F (E.D.N.C. Feb. 23, 2004). 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 -
