Filed: Nov. 19, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7114 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JEFFREY BLAKE JOHNSON, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00061-gmw-5) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 19, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeff
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7114 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JEFFREY BLAKE JOHNSON, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00061-gmw-5) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 19, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7114 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JEFFREY BLAKE JOHNSON, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00061-gmw-5) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 19, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Blake Johnson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Jeffrey Blake Johnson appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Johnson, No. 3:94-cr- 00061-gmw-5 (W.D. Va. June 3, 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
