Filed: Mar. 07, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6709 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAYDON KURTIS BURNEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-00402-REP-1) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 7, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Saydon K
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6709 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAYDON KURTIS BURNEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-00402-REP-1) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 7, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Saydon Ku..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6709
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAYDON KURTIS BURNEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00402-REP-1)
Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 7, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Saydon Kurtis Burney, Appellant Pro Se. Norval George Metcalf,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Saydon Kurtis Burney appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for
reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Burney, No. 3:05-cr-
00402-REP-1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 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