Filed: Sep. 01, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6334 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GLEN MARK, JR., Defendant - Appellant.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-89-263-G; CA-04-500-1) Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: September 1, 2005 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6334 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GLEN MARK, JR., Defendant - Appellant.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-89-263-G; CA-04-500-1) Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: September 1, 2005 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6334 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GLEN MARK, JR., Defendant - Appellant.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-89-263-G; CA-04-500-1) Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: September 1, 2005 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glen Mark, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Glen Mark, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for modification of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000). Our review of the district court’s opinion adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny as unnecessary Mark’s motion for a certificate of appealability, grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.* See United States v. Mark, Nos. CR-89-263-G; CA- 04-500-1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 15, 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 * Mark’s motion for expedited treatment is denied as moot. - 2 -