Filed: Mar. 17, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6176 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE DAVID BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-93-264-V) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 17, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie David Brown, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6176 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE DAVID BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-93-264-V) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 17, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie David Brown, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6176 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE DAVID BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-93-264-V) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 17, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie David Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Willie David Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his “motion to modify term of imprisonment” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Brown, No. CR-93-264-V (W.D.N.C. Dec. 24, 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
