Filed: Oct. 22, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7341 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BURNIE LEE RANDALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00583-TLW-6) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Burnie Lee Randall, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7341 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BURNIE LEE RANDALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00583-TLW-6) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Burnie Lee Randall, Appellant Pro ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7341 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BURNIE LEE RANDALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00583-TLW-6) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Burnie Lee Randall, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Burnie Lee Randall appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduction in sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Randall, No. 4:06-cr-00583- TLW-6 (D.S.C. June 30, 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
