Filed: May 27, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7941 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAYLAR TASSMALL BYERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:00-cr-00137-FDW-6) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 27, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jaylar Tassmall Byers, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7941 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAYLAR TASSMALL BYERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:00-cr-00137-FDW-6) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 27, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jaylar Tassmall Byers, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7941 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAYLAR TASSMALL BYERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:00-cr-00137-FDW-6) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 27, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jaylar Tassmall Byers, Appellant Pro Se. Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jaylar Tassmall Byers appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Byers, No. 3:00-cr-00137-FDW-6 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 5, 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
