Filed: May 28, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6083 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES ALEXANDER SCOTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:99-cr-00405-1) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Alexander Scott, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6083 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES ALEXANDER SCOTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:99-cr-00405-1) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Alexander Scott, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6083 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES ALEXANDER SCOTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:99-cr-00405-1) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Alexander Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Alexander Scott appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Scott, No. 1:99-cr-00405-1 (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 5, 2009 & entered Jan. 7, 2009). 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
