Filed: Mar. 29, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7669 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARRY DEAN DUTTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-103-MU) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 29, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Dean Dutto
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7669 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARRY DEAN DUTTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-103-MU) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 29, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Dean Dutton..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7669
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LARRY DEAN DUTTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-103-MU)
Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 29, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Dean Dutton, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Larry Dean Dutton appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on a motion to modify 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. Dutton, No. CR-94-103-MU
(W.D.N.C. filed Sept. 29, 2005 & entered Sept. 30, 2005) ; see also
United States v. Moreno,
421 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2005)
(holding United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), “is
inapplicable to § 3582(c) motions.”). 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 -