Filed: Nov. 13, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6941 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BELTON HARRIS, JR., a/k/a Lett, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-01055-MJP-1) Submitted: October 22, 2008 Decided: November 13, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Belt
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6941 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BELTON HARRIS, JR., a/k/a Lett, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-01055-MJP-1) Submitted: October 22, 2008 Decided: November 13, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Belto..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6941 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BELTON HARRIS, JR., a/k/a Lett, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-01055-MJP-1) Submitted: October 22, 2008 Decided: November 13, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Belton Harris, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Belton Harris, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. We deny the 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
