Filed: Jul. 01, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6405 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERVONNE DARCILE HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:03-cr-00100-RAJ-FBS-2) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: July 1, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jervonne Darcile H
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6405 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERVONNE DARCILE HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:03-cr-00100-RAJ-FBS-2) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: July 1, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jervonne Darcile Ha..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6405 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERVONNE DARCILE HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:03-cr-00100-RAJ-FBS-2) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: July 1, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jervonne Darcile Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jervonne Darcile Harris appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel the Government to file a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Harris, No. 4:03-cr-00100- RAJ-FBS-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 6, 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
