Filed: Mar. 19, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8161 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. STARKS FINCHER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:08-cr-01219-GRA-1) Submitted: February 11, 2013 Decided: March 19, 2013 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starks Fincher, J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8161 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. STARKS FINCHER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:08-cr-01219-GRA-1) Submitted: February 11, 2013 Decided: March 19, 2013 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starks Fincher, Jr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8161 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. STARKS FINCHER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:08-cr-01219-GRA-1) Submitted: February 11, 2013 Decided: March 19, 2013 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starks Fincher, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Starks Fincher, Jr., 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. Fincher, No. 7:08-cr-01219-GRA-1 (D.S.C. June 13, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
