Filed: Apr. 06, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANGELO SHERMAN, a/k/a Angel Sherman, a/k/a Rodney Lamar Gibbs, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00303-PMD) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 6, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANGELO SHERMAN, a/k/a Angel Sherman, a/k/a Rodney Lamar Gibbs, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00303-PMD) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 6, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANGELO SHERMAN, a/k/a Angel Sherman, a/k/a Rodney Lamar Gibbs, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00303-PMD) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 6, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Angelo Sherman, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Alan Gray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Angelo Sherman appeals the district court’s oral order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion for a reduction of his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. We therefore affirm the denial of relief on that ground. 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 -
