Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Olds, 03-6934 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6934 Visitors: 34
Filed: Feb. 10, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6934 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL DENNIS OLDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-30-F) Submitted: September 10, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Dennis
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6934 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL DENNIS OLDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-30-F) Submitted: September 10, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Dennis Olds, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Dennis Olds appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions filed under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582 (West 2000 & Supp. 2003), and for reconsideration.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The district court may not modify a sentence under § 3582 once it has been imposed except in very narrow circumstances not applicable here. Because Olds’ claims were not cognizable under § 3582, we affirm the district court’s denial of relief on that basis. 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 * Olds does not challenge the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration in his informal brief filed in this court. He therefore has waived appellate review of that order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer