Filed: Jan. 24, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7527 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BENJAMIN SAWYER, JR., a/k/a Big Ben, Defendant - Appellant. No. 96-7534 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEITH C. WARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-92-88) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Befor
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7527 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BENJAMIN SAWYER, JR., a/k/a Big Ben, Defendant - Appellant. No. 96-7534 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEITH C. WARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-92-88) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7527 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BENJAMIN SAWYER, JR., a/k/a Big Ben, Defendant - Appellant. No. 96-7534 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEITH C. WARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-92-88) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin Sawyer, Jr., Keith C. Ward, Appellants Pro Se. Charles Dee Griffith, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Benjamin Sawyer, Jr. and Keith C. Ward appeal the district court's order denying their motions to reconsider its earlier denial of their motions to modify their sentences under 18 U.S.C. ยง 3582(c)(2) (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Sawyer, CR-92-88 (E.D. Va. Sept. 4 & 17, 1996); United States v. Ward, CR-92-88 (E.D. Va. Sept. 9 & 18, 1996). 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