Filed: Mar. 11, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7533 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LEVI H. WINSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:91-cr-00189-2) Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: March 11, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Levi H. Winston, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7533 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LEVI H. WINSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:91-cr-00189-2) Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: March 11, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Levi H. Winston, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7533 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LEVI H. WINSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:91-cr-00189-2) Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: March 11, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Levi H. Winston, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Levi H. Winston appeals the district court’s order denying Winston’s motion for reconsideration of the order finding him ineligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Winston, No. 3:91-cr-00189-2 (S.D. W. Va. July 17, 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
