Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Spencer Bowens, 15-6644 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-6644 Visitors: 26
Filed: Sep. 01, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6644 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SPENCER BOWENS, a/k/a Scooter, a/k/a Clyde, a/k/a Melvin McCurdy, a/k/a Doc Johnson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:98-cr-00110-REP-1) Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 1, 2015 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
More
                               UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 15-6644


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

SPENCER BOWENS, a/k/a Scooter, a/k/a           Clyde,   a/k/a   Melvin
McCurdy, a/k/a Doc Johnson,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:98-cr-00110-REP-1)


Submitted:   August 27, 2015                 Decided:   September 1, 2015


Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Spencer Bowens, Appellant Pro Se.   Dominick Salvatore Gerace,
II, Norval George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

     Spencer Bowens appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012).     We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error.   Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.     United States v. Bowens, No. 3:98-cr-

00110-REP-1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 17, 2015).      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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer