Filed: Mar. 25, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6893 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES DEMETRIUS ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (6:02-cr-70098-nkm-1) Submitted: March 13, 2009 Decided: March 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Demetrius Robins
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6893 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES DEMETRIUS ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (6:02-cr-70098-nkm-1) Submitted: March 13, 2009 Decided: March 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Demetrius Robinso..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6893 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES DEMETRIUS ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (6:02-cr-70098-nkm-1) Submitted: March 13, 2009 Decided: March 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Demetrius Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Craig Jon Jacobsen, Assistant United States Attorneys, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Demetrius Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying 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 affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Robinson, No. 6:02-cr-70098-nkm-1 (W.D. Va. May 22, 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
