Filed: Oct. 06, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6547 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES M. RUSSELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:98-cr-00483-DKC-1) Submitted: September 16, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6547 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES M. RUSSELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:98-cr-00483-DKC-1) Submitted: September 16, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6547
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES M. RUSSELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:98-cr-00483-DKC-1)
Submitted: September 16, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles M. Russell, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Gina Simms, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles M. Russell appeals the district court’s order
denying a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Russell, No. 8:98-cr-00483-
DKC-1 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2010). 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