Filed: Apr. 27, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JOHNNY RAY ADAMS, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:96-cr-00132-F-1) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Ray Adams, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JOHNNY RAY ADAMS, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:96-cr-00132-F-1) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Ray Adams, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6007
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOHNNY RAY ADAMS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:96-cr-00132-F-1)
Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 27, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny Ray Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Ray Adams 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. See United
States v. Hood, __ F.3d __,
2009 WL 416979 (4th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Adams, No. 5:96-cr-00132-F-1 (E.D.N.C.
Dec. 17, 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