Filed: Mar. 24, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6034 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY HAYNESWORTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:99-cr-00286-CMC-1) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 24, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Haynesworth, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6034 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY HAYNESWORTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:99-cr-00286-CMC-1) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 24, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Haynesworth, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6034
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY HAYNESWORTH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:99-cr-00286-CMC-1)
Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 24, 2009
Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Haynesworth, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Haynesworth appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find
no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United
States v. Haynesworth, No. 3:99-cr-00268-CMC-1 (D.S.C. Dec. 22,
2008), and the reasons expressed in our recent decision in
United States v. Dunphy,
551 F.3d 247, 253-56 (4th Cir. 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