Filed: Apr. 26, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7127 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHUNGA HAKI MATATA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (4:94-cr-00044-LHT-12) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chunga Haki
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7127 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHUNGA HAKI MATATA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (4:94-cr-00044-LHT-12) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chunga Haki M..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7127
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHUNGA HAKI MATATA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (4:94-cr-00044-LHT-12)
Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chunga Haki Matata, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chunga Haki Matata seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the
order reducing his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Matata, No. 4:94-cr-00044-LHT-12
(W.D.N.C. May 14, 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