Filed: Jul. 30, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6177 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SARKIS CHADOYAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00212-HEH-1) Submitted: July 16, 2009 Decided: July 30, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sarkis Chadoyan, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6177 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SARKIS CHADOYAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00212-HEH-1) Submitted: July 16, 2009 Decided: July 30, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sarkis Chadoyan, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6177 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SARKIS CHADOYAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00212-HEH-1) Submitted: July 16, 2009 Decided: July 30, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sarkis Chadoyan, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sarkis Chadoyan filed a motion in the district court for reduction of sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). The district court docketed the motion as an appeal from the denial of Chadoyan’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion. Because our review of the record convinces us that the document was incorrectly docketed, we dismiss the appeal and remand to the district court for consideration of Chadoyan’s Rule 35 motion on the merits. 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. DISMISSED AND REMANDED 2
