Filed: May 08, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARTEZ MANDEL COLEMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:01-cr-00506-JFA-4) Submitted: April 17, 2009 Decided: May 8, 2009 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martez Mandel Col
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARTEZ MANDEL COLEMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:01-cr-00506-JFA-4) Submitted: April 17, 2009 Decided: May 8, 2009 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martez Mandel Cole..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARTEZ MANDEL COLEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00506-JFA-4)
Submitted: April 17, 2009 Decided: May 8, 2009
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Martez Mandel Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes,
Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Martez Mandel Coleman appeals 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. See United States v.
Coleman, No. 3:01-cr-00506-JFA-4 (D.S.C. Dec. 15, 2008); see
also United States v. Dunphy,
551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2009),
petition for cert. filed (Mar. 20, 2009) (No. 08-1185). 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