Filed: Feb. 27, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8325 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ANDRE DONELL BROWN, JR., Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00139-HEH-1) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Donell Brown,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8325 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ANDRE DONELL BROWN, JR., Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00139-HEH-1) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Donell Brown, J..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8325 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ANDRE DONELL BROWN, JR., Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00139-HEH-1) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Donell Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andre Donell Brown, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion to reduce sentence. 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. 3:03-cr-00139-HEH-1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 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
