Filed: Nov. 21, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7295 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MONRAIL LASHUN MADDOX, a/k/a Monral Lashun Maddox, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:03-cr-00092-LHT-1) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 21, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7295 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MONRAIL LASHUN MADDOX, a/k/a Monral Lashun Maddox, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:03-cr-00092-LHT-1) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 21, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7295 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MONRAIL LASHUN MADDOX, a/k/a Monral Lashun Maddox, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:03-cr-00092-LHT-1) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 21, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Monrail Lashun Maddox, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Monrail Lashun Maddox appeals a district court order denying his motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ยง 3582(c)(2) (2006). 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. Maddox, No. 1:03-cr-00092-LHT (W.D.N.C. July 14, 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
