Filed: Feb. 04, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7954 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KARL EARL BEAMON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (4:99-cr-00004-JBF-1) Submitted: January 7, 2009 Decided: February 4, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karl Earl Beamon, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7954 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KARL EARL BEAMON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (4:99-cr-00004-JBF-1) Submitted: January 7, 2009 Decided: February 4, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karl Earl Beamon, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7954 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KARL EARL BEAMON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (4:99-cr-00004-JBF-1) Submitted: January 7, 2009 Decided: February 4, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karl Earl Beamon, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Karl Earl Beamon 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. Beamon, No. 4:99-cr-00004-JBF- 1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 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
