Filed: Jan. 03, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6795 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAMOND EARL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Namond Brewington, a/k/a Tony Smith, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:90-cr-00135-JFM-4) Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 3, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Aff
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6795 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAMOND EARL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Namond Brewington, a/k/a Tony Smith, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:90-cr-00135-JFM-4) Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 3, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6795
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NAMOND EARL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Namond Brewington, a/k/a Tony
Smith,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
(1:90-cr-00135-JFM-4)
Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 3, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Namond Earl Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Namond Earl Williams appeals the district court’s
orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a
sentence reduction and denying reconsideration. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s orders. 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