Filed: Sep. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6596 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEVON ANTHONY WARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:02-cr-00034-BO-1) Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: September 2, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6596 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEVON ANTHONY WARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:02-cr-00034-BO-1) Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: September 2, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6596
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEVON ANTHONY WARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:02-cr-00034-BO-1)
Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: September 2, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jevon Anthony Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. Kotiya,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jevon Anthony Ward appeals the district court’s order
denying his self-styled “Motion for Court to Request that the
United States Attorney Consider Exercising [its] Discretion by
Withdrawing Additional 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) of Movant’s
Conviction.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See United States v. Ward, No. 5:02-cr-00034-
BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 27, 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