Filed: Oct. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7279 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COURTNEY MARKEE GILMORE, a/k/a Dust, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00501-JFA-6) Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7279 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COURTNEY MARKEE GILMORE, a/k/a Dust, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00501-JFA-6) Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7279 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COURTNEY MARKEE GILMORE, a/k/a Dust, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00501-JFA-6) Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Courtney Markee Gilmore, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Courtney Markee Gilmore appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Guidelines Amendment 782. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Gilmore, No. 3:09-cr- 00501-JFA-6 (D.S.C. July 29, 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
