Filed: Jan. 19, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6868 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. XAVIER MARCELLUS PAUL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:98-cr-00192-JCC-4) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 19, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Xavier Marcellus Pau
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6868 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. XAVIER MARCELLUS PAUL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:98-cr-00192-JCC-4) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 19, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Xavier Marcellus Paul..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6868
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
XAVIER MARCELLUS PAUL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:98-cr-00192-JCC-4)
Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 19, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Xavier Marcellus Paul, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Xavier Marcellus Paul appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (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. Paul, No. 1:98-cr-00192-JCC-4 (E.D. Va. June 10,
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