Filed: Jul. 01, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6432 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT EUGENE MOTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:00-cr-00046-RLV-3) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: July 1, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Eugene Mott, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6432 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT EUGENE MOTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:00-cr-00046-RLV-3) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: July 1, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Eugene Mott, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6432
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT EUGENE MOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:00-cr-00046-RLV-3)
Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: July 1, 2009
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Eugene Mott, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Robert Eugene Mott appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United
States v. Mott, No. 5:00-cr-00046-RLV-3 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 4, 2009).
See United States v. Hood,
556 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2009). We
deny Mott’s motion for appointment of 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