Filed: Dec. 28, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6856 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES A. BUTLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:91-cr-00044) Submitted: November 28, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Butler, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6856 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES A. BUTLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:91-cr-00044) Submitted: November 28, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Butler, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6856 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES A. BUTLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:91-cr-00044) Submitted: November 28, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James A. Butler appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motion and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Butler, No. 3:91-cr-00044 (E.D. Va. Apr. 17 & May 3, 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. DISMISSED - 2 -
