Filed: Mar. 22, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7369 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BREON MONTEZ SANDERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cr-00026-F-2) Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 22, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Breon Montez Sanders, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7369 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BREON MONTEZ SANDERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cr-00026-F-2) Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 22, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Breon Montez Sanders, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7369
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BREON MONTEZ SANDERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00026-F-2)
Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 22, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Breon Montez Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes,
Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Breon Montez Sanders appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Sanders’ motion
for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. United States v. Sanders, No. 5:05-cr-
00026-F-2 (E.D.N.C. July 17, 2009). 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