Filed: Jul. 15, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6695 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY STEVEN AUSTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-93-131) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Steven Austin,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6695 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY STEVEN AUSTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-93-131) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Steven Austin, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6695 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY STEVEN AUSTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-93-131) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Steven Austin, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Steven Austin appeals the district court’s order deny- ing his motion to reduce his sentence and his motion to re-open his case. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the rea- soning of the district court. See United States v. Austin, No. CR- 93-131 (M.D.N.C. May 7, 1999). 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
