Filed: Feb. 24, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7730 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHNNY MACK BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (3:94-cr-00027-jpj-1) Submitted: January 30, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Mack Bro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7730 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHNNY MACK BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (3:94-cr-00027-jpj-1) Submitted: January 30, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Mack Brow..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7730 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHNNY MACK BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (3:94-cr-00027-jpj-1) Submitted: January 30, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Mack Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Johnny Mack Brown appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence, 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. United States v. Brown, No. 3:94-cr- 00027-jpj-1 (W.D. Va. July 30, 2008). We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and 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
