Filed: Apr. 22, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7065 GERALD J. HOLMES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:02-cr-00823-PMD-1) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald J. Holmes, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7065 GERALD J. HOLMES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:02-cr-00823-PMD-1) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald J. Holmes, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7065 GERALD J. HOLMES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:02-cr-00823-PMD-1) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald J. Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Thomas Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gerald J. Holmes appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Holmes, No. 2:02-cr-00823-PMD-1 (D.S.C. June 9, 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
