Filed: Sep. 10, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6863 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY MURRELL JOHNSON, a/k/a Rock, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:92- cr-00051-JFM) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 10, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Murrel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6863 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY MURRELL JOHNSON, a/k/a Rock, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:92- cr-00051-JFM) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 10, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Murrell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6863 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY MURRELL JOHNSON, a/k/a Rock, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:92- cr-00051-JFM) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 10, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Murrell Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Murrell Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). 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. Johnson, No. 1:92-cr-00051-JFM (D. Md. May 24, 2007). 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 -
