Filed: May 31, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7657 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARK CLIFTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:96-cr-00062-H-2) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Clifton, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7657 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARK CLIFTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:96-cr-00062-H-2) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Clifton, Appellant Pro Se. A..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7657
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK CLIFTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (7:96-cr-00062-H-2)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Clifton, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Clifton appeals the district court’s order
denying Clifton a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c) (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. Clifton, No. 7:96-cr-
00062-H-2 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 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