Filed: Aug. 21, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6892 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL CLIVE PHILLIPS, Defendant -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-HCM-5) Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2008 Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6892 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL CLIVE PHILLIPS, Defendant -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-HCM-5) Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2008 Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6892 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL CLIVE PHILLIPS, Defendant -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-HCM-5) Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2008 Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 denying his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)(2000). 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-HCM-5 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 29, 2008; entered May 2, 2008). 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
