Filed: Jul. 29, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6369 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DAVID LYNDON ARMSTRONG, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:03-cr-00107-F-1) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6369 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DAVID LYNDON ARMSTRONG, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:03-cr-00107-F-1) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6369 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DAVID LYNDON ARMSTRONG, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:03-cr-00107-F-1) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Lyndon Armstrong, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: David Lyndon Armstrong appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). 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. Armstrong, No. 7:03-cr-00107-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 17, 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
