Filed: Aug. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6861 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER EUGENE HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00115-MR-1) Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6861 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER EUGENE HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00115-MR-1) Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6861 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER EUGENE HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00115-MR-1) Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Eugene Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Eugene Harris appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel the Government to move for a sentence reduction based on substantial assistance. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Harris, No. 1:07-cr-00115-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. April 18, 2012). 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
