Filed: Aug. 23, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6371 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRUCE DOUGLAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CR-93-92) Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005 Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Douglas, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Wa
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6371 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRUCE DOUGLAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CR-93-92) Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005 Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Douglas, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Was..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6371 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRUCE DOUGLAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CR-93-92) Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005 Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Douglas, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Bruce Douglas appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000) motion. 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. Douglas, No. CR-93-92 (D.S.C. filed Oct. 29, 2004 & entered Nov. 1, 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 -
