Filed: Aug. 15, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7354 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LUTHER T. GOLDSMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (CR-01-29) Submitted: August 4, 2006 Decided: August 15, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luther T. Goldsmith, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7354 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LUTHER T. GOLDSMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (CR-01-29) Submitted: August 4, 2006 Decided: August 15, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luther T. Goldsmith, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7354 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LUTHER T. GOLDSMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (CR-01-29) Submitted: August 4, 2006 Decided: August 15, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luther T. Goldsmith, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Luther T. Goldsmith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Goldsmith’s § 3582 motion for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Goldsmith, No. CR-01-29 (E.D. Va. July 18, 2005). 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 -
