Filed: Dec. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6968 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEMETRIUS DARRELL WHITEHEAD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00213-BO-1) Submitted: November 26, 2018 Decided: December 13, 2018 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6968 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEMETRIUS DARRELL WHITEHEAD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00213-BO-1) Submitted: November 26, 2018 Decided: December 13, 2018 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6968
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEMETRIUS DARRELL WHITEHEAD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00213-BO-1)
Submitted: November 26, 2018 Decided: December 13, 2018
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Demetrius Darrell Whitehead, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Demetrius Darrell Whitehead appeals the district court’s order denying his motion
for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (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. Whitehead, No. 5:10-cr-00213-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. July 26, 2018).
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