Filed: Jul. 01, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6584 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MARIO FANEAK WASHINGTON, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00063-LHT-1) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: July 1, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Faneak Washing
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6584 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MARIO FANEAK WASHINGTON, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00063-LHT-1) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: July 1, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Faneak Washingt..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6584 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MARIO FANEAK WASHINGTON, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00063-LHT-1) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: July 1, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Faneak Washington, Appellant Pro Se. David Kenneth Davis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mario Faneak Washington appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 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. Washington, No. 1:04-cr-00063- LHT-1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 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
