Filed: Apr. 11, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6165 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BROOKS JAMES TERRELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-610-HMH) Submitted: March 23, 2007 Decided: April 11, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6165 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BROOKS JAMES TERRELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-610-HMH) Submitted: March 23, 2007 Decided: April 11, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6165 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BROOKS JAMES TERRELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-610-HMH) Submitted: March 23, 2007 Decided: April 11, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brooks James Terrell, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brooks James Terrell appeals the district court order denying his motion for a reduction to his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See United States v. Terrell, No. CR-99-610-HMH (D.S.C. Dec. 9, 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 -
