Filed: Jun. 24, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8187 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. THOMAS FLOYD LITTLEJOHN, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:90-cr-00231-MR-DL) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 24, 2010 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8187 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. THOMAS FLOYD LITTLEJOHN, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:90-cr-00231-MR-DL) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 24, 2010 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8187
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
THOMAS FLOYD LITTLEJOHN,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:90-cr-00231-MR-DL)
Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 24, 2010
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Floyd Littlejohn, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Thomas Floyd Littlejohn appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence filed
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the
record and find the district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying the motion. See United States v. Stewart,
595 F.3d
197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order for the reasons stated there. See United
States v. Littlejohn, No. 1:90-cr-00231-MR-DL (W.D.N.C. Aug. 14,
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