Filed: Jan. 25, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7714 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WILLIAM JUNIOR JACOBS, a/k/a Boogie, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00036-FDW-1) Submitted: January 13, 2010 Decided: January 25, 2010 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7714 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WILLIAM JUNIOR JACOBS, a/k/a Boogie, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00036-FDW-1) Submitted: January 13, 2010 Decided: January 25, 2010 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7714 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WILLIAM JUNIOR JACOBS, a/k/a Boogie, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00036-FDW-1) Submitted: January 13, 2010 Decided: January 25, 2010 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Junior Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Junior Jacobs seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Jacobs, No. 3:03-cr-00036-FDW-1 (W.D.N.C. July 28, 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
