Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Matthews, 07-7087 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-7087 Visitors: 41
Filed: Nov. 26, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7087 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff- Appellee, versus CLINTON STANLEY MATTHEWS, a/k/a Howard L. Eastwood, a/k/a Stanley Matthews, a/k/a Clinton Mallhew, a/k/a William Christopher Hinton, a/k/a Bernard Jones, a/k/a Craig Jerrod Ingram, a/k/a Ian Bernard Matthew, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Ju
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7087 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff- Appellee, versus CLINTON STANLEY MATTHEWS, a/k/a Howard L. Eastwood, a/k/a Stanley Matthews, a/k/a Clinton Mallhew, a/k/a William Christopher Hinton, a/k/a Bernard Jones, a/k/a Craig Jerrod Ingram, a/k/a Ian Bernard Matthew, 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-00066-HCM-1) Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 26, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clinton Stanley Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Philip Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clinton Stanley Matthews appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2000) motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Matthews, No. 2:93-cr-00066-HCM (E.D. Va. July 3, 2007). We deny Matthews’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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