Filed: Oct. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6836 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRUCE LAMONT GOODWIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00835-MBS-6) Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Lamont Goodwin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6836 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRUCE LAMONT GOODWIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00835-MBS-6) Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Lamont Goodwin,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6836 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRUCE LAMONT GOODWIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00835-MBS-6) Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Lamont Goodwin, Appellant Pro Se. Winston David Holliday, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bruce Lamont Goodwin appeals the district court’s text order denying his post-judgment motion to reduce his sentence. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Goodwin, No. 5:10-cr-00835-MBS-6 (D.S.C. Apr. 23, 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
