Filed: Sep. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7025 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TRAVIS YOUNG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00671-MBS-1) Submitted: October 30, 2013 Decided: September 12, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Travis Young, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7025 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TRAVIS YOUNG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00671-MBS-1) Submitted: October 30, 2013 Decided: September 12, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Travis Young, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7025 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TRAVIS YOUNG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00671-MBS-1) Submitted: October 30, 2013 Decided: September 12, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Travis Young, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Travis Young appeals the district court’s order denying his motions to reconsider the denial of his motion to reduce sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Young, No. 3:07-cr-00671-MBS-1 (D.S.C. June 18, 2013). 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
