Filed: Apr. 09, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6298 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY MCCLAIN, a/k/a Ice, a/k/a New York, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (5:96-cr-00179-CMC-1) Submitted: March 24, 2008 Decided: April 9, 2008 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6298 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY MCCLAIN, a/k/a Ice, a/k/a New York, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (5:96-cr-00179-CMC-1) Submitted: March 24, 2008 Decided: April 9, 2008 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6298
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY MCCLAIN, a/k/a Ice, a/k/a New York,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (5:96-cr-00179-CMC-1)
Submitted: March 24, 2008 Decided: April 9, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony McClain, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Todd Hagins, Nancy
Chastain Wicker, Scarlett Anne Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony McClain appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000), seeking a
reduction to his sentence based on an amendment to the Sentencing
Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we find the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Goines,
357
F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (motion under § 3582(c) “is subject
to the discretion of the district court”); United States v. Legree,
205 F.3d 724, 727 (4th Cir. 2000). 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 -