Filed: Aug. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6693 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. EUGENE BARNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00023-IMK-1) Submitted: July 29, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Zeld
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6693 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. EUGENE BARNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00023-IMK-1) Submitted: July 29, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6693
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
EUGENE BARNES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00023-IMK-1)
Submitted: July 29, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley,
Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Barnes appeals the district court’s order denying
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of
sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Barnes, No. 1:11-cr-00023-IMK-
1 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 25, 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