Filed: Jun. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6241 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDDIE DEAN FLUKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (1:92-cr-00031-SGW-1) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie Dean Fluker, Appellant Pro Se. Ste
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6241 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDDIE DEAN FLUKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (1:92-cr-00031-SGW-1) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie Dean Fluker, Appellant Pro Se. Stev..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6241 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDDIE DEAN FLUKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (1:92-cr-00031-SGW-1) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie Dean Fluker, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eddie Dean Fluker appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (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. Fluker, No. 1:92-cr-00031-SGW-1 (W.D. Va. Jan. 30, 2012). 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
