Filed: Oct. 19, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6764 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDRE CLAIBORNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:01-cr-00304-JRS-3) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Claiborne, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6764 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDRE CLAIBORNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:01-cr-00304-JRS-3) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Claiborne, Appellant P..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6764 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDRE CLAIBORNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:01-cr-00304-JRS-3) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Claiborne, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andre Claiborne appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction of 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. Claiborne, No. 3:01-cr-00304-JRS-3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 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
