Filed: Jun. 14, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MATTHEW LANE DRENNEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-27-5) Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: June 14, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Lane Drenne
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MATTHEW LANE DRENNEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-27-5) Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: June 14, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Lane Drennen..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MATTHEW LANE DRENNEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-95-27-5)
Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: June 14, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew Lane Drennen, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Lane Drennen appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c) (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. Drennen, No. CR-95-27-5
(N.D.W. Va. Oct. 9, 2003); see also United States v. Capers,
61
F.3d 1100, 1109 (4th Cir. 1992). 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 -