Filed: Dec. 02, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7721 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ZELMAN ROACH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-00207-RLW-1) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: December 2, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7721 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ZELMAN ROACH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-00207-RLW-1) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: December 2, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7721 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ZELMAN ROACH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-00207-RLW-1) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: December 2, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zelman Roach, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Zelman Roach appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed 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. Roach, No. 3:05-cr-00207-RLW-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 12, 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
