Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Knight, 07-6401 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-6401 Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 16, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6401 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ELBERT THOMAS KNIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. No. 07-6402 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ELBERT THOMAS KNIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:96-cr-00196-HCM; 2:00-cr-00056-RAJ) Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: Oc
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6401 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ELBERT THOMAS KNIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. No. 07-6402 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ELBERT THOMAS KNIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:96-cr-00196-HCM; 2:00-cr-00056-RAJ) Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 16, 2007 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elbert Thomas Knight, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Elbert Thomas Knight appeals the district court’s order denying reconsideration of his motion seeking an order to compel the Government to file a motion to reduce his sentence based on substantial assistance. 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. Knight, Nos. 2:96-cr-00196-HCM; 2:00-cr-00056-RAJ (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 27, 2007; entered Feb. 28, 2007). 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 - 3 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer