Filed: Apr. 29, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6169 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DENNIS TAMAR FREEMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:07-cr-00122-WDK-JEB-1) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Tamar Freeman, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6169 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DENNIS TAMAR FREEMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:07-cr-00122-WDK-JEB-1) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Tamar Freeman, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6169 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DENNIS TAMAR FREEMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:07-cr-00122-WDK-JEB-1) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Tamar Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. D. Monique Broadnax, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dennis Tamar Freeman appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Freeman, No. 2:07-cr- 00122-WDK-JEB-1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 8, 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
