Filed: Apr. 30, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7974 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. YUDELL AMON BRANCH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00134-RGD-JEB-1) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: April 30, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yudell Amon Br
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7974 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. YUDELL AMON BRANCH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00134-RGD-JEB-1) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: April 30, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yudell Amon Bra..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7974
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
YUDELL AMON BRANCH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:03-cr-00134-RGD-JEB-1)
Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: April 30, 2009
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yudell Amon Branch, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yudell Amon Branch appeals from the district court’s
order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and
find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying the
motion. See United States v. Lindsey,
556 F.3d 238, 244-46 (4th
Cir. 2009); United States v. Hood,
556 F.3d 226, 232-33 (4th
Cir. 2009). 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