Filed: Jul. 20, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6597 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DWIGHT SPEARS, a/k/a Whitney, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-53) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwight Spears
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6597 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DWIGHT SPEARS, a/k/a Whitney, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-53) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwight Spears,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6597 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DWIGHT SPEARS, a/k/a Whitney, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-53) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwight Spears, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dwight Spears appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. 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. See United States v. Spears, No. CR-92-53 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 18, 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
