Filed: Feb. 24, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7606 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TROY M. WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:02-cr-00110-1) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy M. William
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7606 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TROY M. WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:02-cr-00110-1) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy M. Williams..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7606 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TROY M. WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:02-cr-00110-1) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy M. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Troy M. Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion, and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Williams, No. 2:02-cr-00110-1 (S.D.W. Va. July 14 & 28, 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
