Filed: May 28, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6060 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEFFREY EZEKIEL BECKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00250-RJC-CH-10) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Ezeki
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6060 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEFFREY EZEKIEL BECKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00250-RJC-CH-10) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Ezekie..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6060
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY EZEKIEL BECKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00250-RJC-CH-10)
Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Ezekiel Becks, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jeffrey Ezekiel Becks 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. See United States v. Hood,
556 F.3d
226, 232-33 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Becks,
No. 3:04-cr-00250-RJC-CH-10 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 15, 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