Filed: Apr. 22, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7574 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. THOMAS NELSON CONNOR, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00008-RLV-9) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claire J. Rau
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7574 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. THOMAS NELSON CONNOR, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00008-RLV-9) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claire J. Raus..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7574
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
THOMAS NELSON CONNOR,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00008-RLV-9)
Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Federal Public Defender, Charlotte, North
Carolina, Matthew Segal, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Nelson Connor appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we deny Connor’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Connor, No. 5:01-cr-00008-RLV-9 (W.D.N.C. July 30, 2008). See
United States v. Hood, ___ F.3d ___,
2009 WL 416979 (4th Cir.
2009). 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