Filed: Feb. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7051 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CASEY SEON BURNETT, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:99-cr-00006-CMC-5) Submitted: January 30, 2009 Decided: February 23, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Casey Seon Burnett, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7051 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CASEY SEON BURNETT, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:99-cr-00006-CMC-5) Submitted: January 30, 2009 Decided: February 23, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Casey Seon Burnett, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7051 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CASEY SEON BURNETT, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:99-cr-00006-CMC-5) Submitted: January 30, 2009 Decided: February 23, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Casey Seon Burnett, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Casey Seon Burnett appeals the district court’s order denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) for reduction of his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Burnett, No. 4:99-cr-00006-CMC-5 (D.S.C. June 12, 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
