Filed: Jan. 19, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7302 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL AARON LITTLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-99-132; CA-01-702) Submitted: December 23, 2004 Decided: January 19, 2005 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7302 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL AARON LITTLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-99-132; CA-01-702) Submitted: December 23, 2004 Decided: January 19, 2005 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7302 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL AARON LITTLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-99-132; CA-01-702) Submitted: December 23, 2004 Decided: January 19, 2005 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Aaron Little, Appellant Pro Se. Yvonne Victoria Watford- McKinney, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Aaron Little appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Little, Nos. CR-99-132; CA- 01-702 (E.D.N.C. July 26, 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 -
