Filed: Jul. 09, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6656 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRY DONNELL JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00003-RJC-DCK-1) Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: July 9, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6656 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRY DONNELL JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00003-RJC-DCK-1) Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: July 9, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per c..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6656 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRY DONNELL JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00003-RJC-DCK-1) Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: July 9, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry Donnell Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Karen S. Marston, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terry Donnell Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2000) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Johnson, No. 3:05-cr-00003-RJC-DCK-1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 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 -
