Filed: Oct. 08, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6485 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOYCE COLEMAN, Defendant — Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-95-75) Submitted: September 24, 2004 Decided: October 8, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Boyce Coleman, Appellant Pro Se
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6485 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOYCE COLEMAN, Defendant — Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-95-75) Submitted: September 24, 2004 Decided: October 8, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Boyce Coleman, Appellant Pro Se...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6485 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOYCE COLEMAN, Defendant — Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-95-75) Submitted: September 24, 2004 Decided: October 8, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Boyce Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Boyce Coleman appeals the district court’s order denying in part his motion for modification of sentence. 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. Coleman, No. CR-95-75 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2004). 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 -
