Filed: Feb. 10, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7106 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODRIGUEZ SHAWN GREEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:05-cr-00904-RBH-2) Submitted: February 2, 2009 Decided: February 10, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodriguez Shawn Green, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7106 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODRIGUEZ SHAWN GREEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:05-cr-00904-RBH-2) Submitted: February 2, 2009 Decided: February 10, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodriguez Shawn Green, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7106 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODRIGUEZ SHAWN GREEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:05-cr-00904-RBH-2) Submitted: February 2, 2009 Decided: February 10, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodriguez Shawn Green, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rodriguez Shawn Green appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for sentence modification. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Green, No. 4:05-cr-00904-RBH-2 (D.S.C. June 16, 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
