Filed: Jul. 02, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6511 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANA ROSS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (1:05-cr-00009-jpj-pms-1) Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 2, 2008 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dana Ross,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6511 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANA ROSS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (1:05-cr-00009-jpj-pms-1) Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 2, 2008 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dana Ross, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6511
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANA ROSS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District
Judge. (1:05-cr-00009-jpj-pms-1)
Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 2, 2008
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dana Ross, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dana Ross appeals the district court’s order denying his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000) motion for reduction of his sentence.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Ross, No. 1:05-cr-00009-jpj-pms-1 (W.D.
Va. filed Mar. 17, 2008; entered Mar. 18, 2008). 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 -