Filed: May 28, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6084 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GERALD NOBLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:95-cr-00488-JFA-5) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Noble, Appellant Pro Se. S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6084 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GERALD NOBLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:95-cr-00488-JFA-5) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Noble, Appellant Pro Se. Se..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6084 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GERALD NOBLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:95-cr-00488-JFA-5) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Noble, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gerald Noble 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. Noble, No. 3:95-cr-00488-JFA-5 (D.S.C. Jan. 5, 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
