Filed: Mar. 05, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8583 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY DALE NORRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:05-cr-01163-HMH-3) Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: March 5, 2009 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Dale Norris, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8583 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY DALE NORRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:05-cr-01163-HMH-3) Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: March 5, 2009 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Dale Norris, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8583 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY DALE NORRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:05-cr-01163-HMH-3) Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: March 5, 2009 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Dale Norris, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Dale Norris appeals the district court’s order denying 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. Norris, No. 6:05-cr- 01163-HMH-3 (D.S.C. Nov. 20, 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
