Filed: Dec. 04, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7768 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TIMOTHY GERRELL MCDONALD, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:03-cr-00029-H-1) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 4, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7768 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TIMOTHY GERRELL MCDONALD, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:03-cr-00029-H-1) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 4, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy G..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7768 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TIMOTHY GERRELL MCDONALD, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:03-cr-00029-H-1) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 4, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Gerrell McDonald, Appellant Pro Se. J. Frank Bradsher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy Gerrell McDonald appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. McDonald, No. 7:03-cr-00029-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 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
