Filed: May 04, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8607 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FREDERICK LAMAR CIVERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:99-cr-00066-FDW-1) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 4, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick Lamar Civer
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8607 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FREDERICK LAMAR CIVERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:99-cr-00066-FDW-1) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 4, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick Lamar Civers..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8607 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FREDERICK LAMAR CIVERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:99-cr-00066-FDW-1) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 4, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick Lamar Civers, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frederick Lamar Civers appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (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. Civers, No. 3:99-cr-00066-FDW-1 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 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
