Filed: Feb. 24, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7676 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DAMON BRIGHTMAN, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:03-cr-00627-SB-2) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Damon Brightman, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7676 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DAMON BRIGHTMAN, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:03-cr-00627-SB-2) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Damon Brightman, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7676 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DAMON BRIGHTMAN, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:03-cr-00627-SB-2) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Damon Brightman, Appellant Pro Se. Eric John Klumb, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Damon Brightman appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to Amendment 706 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Brightman, No. 2:03-cr-00627- SB-2 (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 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
