Filed: Dec. 18, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7260 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JULIUS JOSEPHUS MARSHALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00076-JBF-TEM-1) Submitted: November 17, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julius Jose
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7260 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JULIUS JOSEPHUS MARSHALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00076-JBF-TEM-1) Submitted: November 17, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julius Josep..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7260 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JULIUS JOSEPHUS MARSHALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00076-JBF-TEM-1) Submitted: November 17, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julius Josephus Marshall, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Julius Josephus Marshall appeals the district court’s order granting in part his motion for reduction of sentence under 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. See United States v. Marshall, No. 2:03-cr-00076-JBF-TEM-1 (E.D. Va. filed July 3, 2008 & entered July 7, 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
