Filed: Jan. 20, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7423 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARRELL W. SAMUEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:94-cr-00773-JFA-1) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 20, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell W. Samuel, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7423 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARRELL W. SAMUEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:94-cr-00773-JFA-1) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 20, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell W. Samuel, Appellant P..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7423
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRELL W. SAMUEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:94-cr-00773-JFA-1)
Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 20, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell W. Samuel, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrell W. Samuel appeals a district court order
denying his motion to reconsider the order granting a sentence
reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). The district court
found it was without jurisdiction, citing United States v.
Goodwyn,
596 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
130 S. Ct.
3530 (2010). We conclude the court correctly denied Samuel’s
motion. Accordingly, we affirm. 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