Filed: Mar. 06, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8391 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL ANDRE LATHON, a/k/a Andre, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:01-cr-00060-H-1) Submitted: February 23, 2009 Decided: March 6, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8391 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMUEL ANDRE LATHON, a/k/a Andre, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:01-cr-00060-H-1) Submitted: February 23, 2009 Decided: March 6, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8391
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAMUEL ANDRE LATHON, a/k/a Andre,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:01-cr-00060-H-1)
Submitted: February 23, 2009 Decided: March 6, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Andre Lathon, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James,
Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Andre Lathon appeals the district court’s order
denying 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, United States v. Lathon, No. 4:01-cr-
00060-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 24, 2008), and the reasons stated in
our recent decision in United States v. Dunphy,
551 F.3d 247
(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