Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Osbourne, 06-7451 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-7451 Visitors: 66
Filed: Sep. 05, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7451 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DUANE JELEAL OSBOURNE, a/k/a Duane Anthony Osborne, a/k/a Rocky, a/k/a Sealed Defendant #12, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (3:95-cr-00178-12) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7451 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DUANE JELEAL OSBOURNE, a/k/a Duane Anthony Osborne, a/k/a Rocky, a/k/a Sealed Defendant #12, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (3:95-cr-00178-12) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Duane Jeleal Osbourne, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Duane Jeleal Osbourne appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion filed under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582 (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Osbourne, No. 3:95-cr-00178-12 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 4, 2006). We grant Osbourne’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 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