Filed: Oct. 22, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7285 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JERON RONDELL RANDALL, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:95-cr-00058-H-2) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeron Rondell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7285 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JERON RONDELL RANDALL, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:95-cr-00058-H-2) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeron Rondell ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7285 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JERON RONDELL RANDALL, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:95-cr-00058-H-2) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeron Rondell Randall, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeron Rondell Randall appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for a sentence reduction under 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. United States v. Randall, No. 4:95-cr-00058-H-2 (E.D.N.C. June 24, 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
