Filed: Dec. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7435 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RODNEY LAMONT ALLEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00032-MR-1) Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Lamont Al
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7435 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RODNEY LAMONT ALLEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00032-MR-1) Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Lamont All..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7435 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RODNEY LAMONT ALLEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00032-MR-1) Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Lamont Allen, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Rodney Lamont Allen appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Allen, No. 1:07-cr-00032-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 10, 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
