Filed: May 04, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8552 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN DESMOND PETERSON, a/k/a Primo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00046-H-3) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 4, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8552 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN DESMOND PETERSON, a/k/a Primo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00046-H-3) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 4, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. S..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8552 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN DESMOND PETERSON, a/k/a Primo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00046-H-3) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 4, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Desmond Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven Desmond Peterson appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying relief on his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (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. Peterson, No. 3:94-cr-00046-H-3 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 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