Filed: Oct. 20, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7066 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RICHARD LAMONT LIGHTY, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Young, a/k/a Richard Dock, a/k/a Bro, a/k/a Richard Duck, a/k/a Melvin, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:04-cr-00072-sgw-1) Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2008 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGE
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7066 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RICHARD LAMONT LIGHTY, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Young, a/k/a Richard Dock, a/k/a Bro, a/k/a Richard Duck, a/k/a Melvin, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:04-cr-00072-sgw-1) Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2008 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7066 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RICHARD LAMONT LIGHTY, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Young, a/k/a Richard Dock, a/k/a Bro, a/k/a Richard Duck, a/k/a Melvin, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:04-cr-00072-sgw-1) Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2008 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Lamont Lighty, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Lin Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard Lamont Lighty appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000) motion and 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. United States v. Lighty, No. 7:04-cr-00072-sgw-1 (W.D. Va. May 23, 2008; June 13, 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
