Filed: Nov. 20, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7521 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CALVIN ANGELO COWARD, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:90-cr-00052-H-2) Submitted: September 30, 2009 Decided: November 20, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Angelo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7521 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CALVIN ANGELO COWARD, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:90-cr-00052-H-2) Submitted: September 30, 2009 Decided: November 20, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Angelo ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7521 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CALVIN ANGELO COWARD, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:90-cr-00052-H-2) Submitted: September 30, 2009 Decided: November 20, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Angelo Coward, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Calvin Angelo Coward appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Coward’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Coward, No. 4:90-cr- 00052-H-2 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 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
