Filed: Nov. 17, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7074 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PAMELA L. BANKS, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:05-cr-00131-RAJ-FBS-2) Submitted: October 23, 2008 Decided: November 17, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pamela L. Banks, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7074 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PAMELA L. BANKS, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:05-cr-00131-RAJ-FBS-2) Submitted: October 23, 2008 Decided: November 17, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pamela L. Banks, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7074 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PAMELA L. BANKS, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:05-cr-00131-RAJ-FBS-2) Submitted: October 23, 2008 Decided: November 17, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pamela L. Banks, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pamela L. Banks appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to reduce her sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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. United States v. Banks, No. 2:05-cr- 00131-RAJ-FBS-2 (E.D. Va. May 13, 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
