Filed: Jun. 04, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7648 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ROBERT SMITH, a/k/a Boo Boo, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:03-cr-00369-CCB-4) Submitted: April 27, 2009 Decided: June 4, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Smith, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7648 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ROBERT SMITH, a/k/a Boo Boo, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:03-cr-00369-CCB-4) Submitted: April 27, 2009 Decided: June 4, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Smith, Appellant Pro S..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7648 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ROBERT SMITH, a/k/a Boo Boo, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:03-cr-00369-CCB-4) Submitted: April 27, 2009 Decided: June 4, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Paul M. Tiao, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Smith appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Smith’s motion to compel the district court to produce his plea agreement and transcript of his arraignment, deny Smith’s motion to place his case in abeyance, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Smith, No. 1:03-cr-00369-CCB-4 (D. Md. May 2, 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
