Filed: Jun. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6162 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONTE CHERON FREEMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:06-cr-00016-JLK-1) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donte Cheron Freema
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6162 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONTE CHERON FREEMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:06-cr-00016-JLK-1) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donte Cheron Freeman..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6162
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONTE CHERON FREEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:06-cr-00016-JLK-1)
Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donte Cheron Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,
Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorneys, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donte Cheron Freeman appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for reconsideration of the order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. We have reviewed
the record and find no abuse of discretion by the district
court. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Freeman, No. 4:06-cr-00016-
JLK-1 (W.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012); see United States v. Hood,
556
F.3d 226, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2009). We deny Freeman’s motion for
appointment of counsel and 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