Filed: Feb. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7815 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALONZO DANTZLER, JR., a/k/a Chillibud, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-489) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7815 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALONZO DANTZLER, JR., a/k/a Chillibud, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-489) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7815 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALONZO DANTZLER, JR., a/k/a Chillibud, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-489) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alonzo Dantzler, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alonzo Dantzler, Jr., appeals the district court’s order deny- ing his motion for downward departure of his sentence on the basis of his post-conviction rehabilitation. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Dantzler, No. CR-95-489 (D.S.C. Nov. 30, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
