Filed: Jun. 17, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7691 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WALTER LOUIS INGRAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 92-116-JFM) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 17, 2003 Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.* Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Louis Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7691 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WALTER LOUIS INGRAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 92-116-JFM) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 17, 2003 Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.* Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Louis Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7691
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WALTER LOUIS INGRAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-
92-116-JFM)
Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 17, 2003
Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.*
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter Louis Ingram, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
*
This case was decided by a quorum of the panel pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
PER CURIAM:
Walter Louis Ingram appeals from the district court’s order
denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. See United States v. Ingram, No. CA-92-116-JFM
(D. Md. Sept. 18, 2002). 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