Filed: Mar. 24, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8553 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARL EDWARD BENNETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (0:04-cr-00657-JFA-2) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 24, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Edward Bennett,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8553 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARL EDWARD BENNETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (0:04-cr-00657-JFA-2) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 24, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Edward Bennett, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8553 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARL EDWARD BENNETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (0:04-cr-00657-JFA-2) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 24, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Edward Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Todd Hagins, SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carl Edward Bennett appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce his 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. Bennett, No. 0:04- cr-00657-JFA-2 (D.S.C. Nov. 21, 2008). We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately addressed in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
