Filed: Apr. 27, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8048 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LUTHER VEREEN, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00271-CWH-1) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luther Vereen,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8048 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LUTHER VEREEN, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00271-CWH-1) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luther Vereen, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8048
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUTHER VEREEN, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (4:03-cr-00271-CWH-1)
Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Luther Vereen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luther Vereen, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Vereen, No. 4:03-cr-00271-CWH-1 (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 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