Filed: May 29, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6142 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAWN DEWAYNE RANDLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cr-00084-JCT-4) Submitted: May 19, 2014 Decided: May 29, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6142 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAWN DEWAYNE RANDLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cr-00084-JCT-4) Submitted: May 19, 2014 Decided: May 29, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. S..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6142 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAWN DEWAYNE RANDLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cr-00084-JCT-4) Submitted: May 19, 2014 Decided: May 29, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shawn Dewayne Randle, Appellant Pro Se. Charlene Rene Day, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shawn Dewayne Randle appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his 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. Randle, No. 7:07-cr-00084-JCT-4 (W.D. Va. Jan. 14, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
