Filed: Jan. 13, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7629 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WENDELL SERGEANT, a/k/a William Brown, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (2:92-cr-00329-2) Submitted: December 9, 2009 Decided: January 13, 2010 Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7629 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WENDELL SERGEANT, a/k/a William Brown, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (2:92-cr-00329-2) Submitted: December 9, 2009 Decided: January 13, 2010 Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7629 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WENDELL SERGEANT, a/k/a William Brown, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (2:92-cr-00329-2) Submitted: December 9, 2009 Decided: January 13, 2010 Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wendell Sergeant, Appellant Pro Se. Hunter Paul Smith, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wendell Sergeant 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 his motion for a transcript at Government expense, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Sergeant, No. 2:92-cr-00329-2 (S.D. W. Va. July 14, 2009; July 15, 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