Filed: Feb. 24, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7681 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RODNEY EDWARD WALL, a/k/a Sld Dft 3:99-24-9, a/k/a Big Rodney, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:99-cr-00024-FDW-9) Submitted: February 18, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7681 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RODNEY EDWARD WALL, a/k/a Sld Dft 3:99-24-9, a/k/a Big Rodney, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:99-cr-00024-FDW-9) Submitted: February 18, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7681 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RODNEY EDWARD WALL, a/k/a Sld Dft 3:99-24-9, a/k/a Big Rodney, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:99-cr-00024-FDW-9) Submitted: February 18, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Edward Wall, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Rodney Edward Wall appeals the district court’s order denying Wall’s 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. Wall, No. 3:99-cr-00024-FDW-9 (W.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
