Filed: Feb. 04, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7680 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN ELLIS EDMONDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:04-cr-00072-SGW-5) Submitted: January 14, 2009 Decided: February 4, 2009 Before MICHAEL, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Ellis Edmonds, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7680 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN ELLIS EDMONDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:04-cr-00072-SGW-5) Submitted: January 14, 2009 Decided: February 4, 2009 Before MICHAEL, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Ellis Edmonds, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7680 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN ELLIS EDMONDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:04-cr-00072-SGW-5) Submitted: January 14, 2009 Decided: February 4, 2009 Before MICHAEL, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Ellis Edmonds, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven Ellis Edmonds appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Edmonds, No. 7:04- cr-00072-SGW-5 (W.D. Va. Aug. 8, 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
