Filed: May 06, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TROY ROLLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-608) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 6, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Rolle, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watso
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TROY ROLLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-608) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 6, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Rolle, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TROY ROLLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-608) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 6, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Rolle, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Troy Rolle appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2004) and his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See United States v. Rolle, No. CR-97-608 (D.S.C. Jan. 6, 2005). Accordingly, we affirm. 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 -
