Filed: Nov. 17, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7049 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. EVERETTE BRYANT LAW, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:93-cr-00066-jlk-1) Submitted: October 29, 2008 Decided: November 17, 2008 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Everette Bryant Law,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7049 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. EVERETTE BRYANT LAW, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:93-cr-00066-jlk-1) Submitted: October 29, 2008 Decided: November 17, 2008 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Everette Bryant Law, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7049 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. EVERETTE BRYANT LAW, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:93-cr-00066-jlk-1) Submitted: October 29, 2008 Decided: November 17, 2008 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Everette Bryant Law, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Urban Baer, Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Everette Bryant Law appeals the district court’s orders denying him a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008), and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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. Law, No. 7:93-cr- 00066-jlk-1 (W.D. Va. May 6, 2008; June 16, 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
