Filed: Oct. 27, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6883 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. HOWARD CHARLES HUDSON, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00156-JEB-1) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 27, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Howard Cha
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6883 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. HOWARD CHARLES HUDSON, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00156-JEB-1) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 27, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Howard Char..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6883 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. HOWARD CHARLES HUDSON, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00156-JEB-1) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 27, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Howard Charles Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Howard Charles Hudson appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hudson, No. 2:93-cr-00156-JEB-1 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 25 & entered Apr. 29, 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
