Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Phillips, 06-8037 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-8037 Visitors: 21
Filed: Apr. 09, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8037 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMUEL CLIVE PHILLIPS, a/k/a Jungle, a/k/a Culture, a/k/a David, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00131) Submitted: March 21, 2007 Decided: April 9, 2007 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Ju
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8037 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMUEL CLIVE PHILLIPS, a/k/a Jungle, a/k/a Culture, a/k/a David, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00131) Submitted: March 21, 2007 Decided: April 9, 2007 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Clive Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Samuel Clive Phillips appeals the district court’s order granting his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000), and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend. 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. Phillips, No. 2:93-cr- 00131 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 13, 2006; entered Sept. 15, 2006 and filed Nov. 14, 2006; entered Nov. 15, 2006). 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 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer