Filed: Apr. 27, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6198 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MICHAEL DARNELL WILKERSON, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:01-cr-00301-H-1) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michae
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6198 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MICHAEL DARNELL WILKERSON, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:01-cr-00301-H-1) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6198 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MICHAEL DARNELL WILKERSON, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:01-cr-00301-H-1) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Darnell Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Darnell Wilkerson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Wilkerson, No. 5:01-cr- 00301-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 2009). We also deny Wilkerson’s motion to appoint counsel. 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
