Filed: Aug. 03, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6353 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PHILLIP ANTONIO OWENS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-50) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Antonio Owens, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6353 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PHILLIP ANTONIO OWENS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-50) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Antonio Owens, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6353 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PHILLIP ANTONIO OWENS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-50) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Antonio Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Phillip Antonio Owens appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Owens’ motion for a reduction in sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Owens, No. CR-93-50 (M.D.N.C. filed Feb. 7, 2005 & entered Feb. 8, 2005). 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 -
