Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Anthony Ruffin, 16-6811 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-6811 Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6811 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY RAVON RUFFIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (4:06-cr-00074-F-1) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Ravon Ru
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-6811


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ANTHONY RAVON RUFFIN,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:06-cr-00074-F-1)


Submitted:   October 18, 2016             Decided:   October 21, 2016


Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Anthony Ravon Ruffin, Appellant Pro Se.      Eric David Goulian,
William Glenn Perry, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

     Anthony   Ravon   Ruffin   appeals   the    district    court’s   order

denying relief on his motion for reduction in sentence pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012).         We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error.          Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court.           United States v. Ruffin,

No. 4:06-cr-00074-F-1 (E.D.N.C. June 3, 2016).              Ruffin’s motion

for appointment of counsel is denied.             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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer