Filed: Nov. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7337 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FREDRICK DEMOND BATTLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00150-D-1) Submitted: November 19, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fredrick
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7337 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FREDRICK DEMOND BATTLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00150-D-1) Submitted: November 19, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fredrick D..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7337
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FREDRICK DEMOND BATTLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00150-D-1)
Submitted: November 19, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fredrick Demond Battle, Appellant Pro Se. Denise Walker, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fredrick Demond Battle appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2012) motion. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Battle, No. 5:09-cr-00150-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 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