Filed: Jun. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7812 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GUY CARMICHAEL CRENSHAW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-96-47, CA-99-424-7) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Guy Carmichael Crenshaw, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7812 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GUY CARMICHAEL CRENSHAW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-96-47, CA-99-424-7) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Guy Carmichael Crenshaw, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7812 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GUY CARMICHAEL CRENSHAW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-96-47, CA-99-424-7) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Guy Carmichael Crenshaw, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Guy Carmichael Crenshaw appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for relief filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (1994), and his motion for reconsideration. Our review of the rec- ord and the district court’s opinions discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Crenshaw, Nos. CR-96-47; CA-99-424-7 (W.D. Va. Nov. 21 & Dec. 14, 2000). 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
