Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Gore, 09-6021 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-6021 Visitors: 28
Filed: Apr. 27, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6021 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. EDWARD GORE, Defendant – Appellant.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-4) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Gore, Appellant
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6021 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. EDWARD GORE, Defendant – Appellant.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-4) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Gore, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Christopher Todd Hagins, SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edward Gore appeals the district court’s order granting the Government’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 motion and granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion and its subsequent order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Gore, No. 0:04-cr-00657-JFA-4 (D.S.C. Dec. 16, 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer