Filed: Nov. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MELVIN E. HOWARD, a/k/a Mu, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:95-cr-00123-BO-10) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin E.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MELVIN E. HOWARD, a/k/a Mu, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:95-cr-00123-BO-10) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin E. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MELVIN E. HOWARD, a/k/a Mu, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:95-cr-00123-BO-10) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin E. Howard, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Melvin E. Howard appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We find no reversible error and we thus affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Howard, No. 5:95-cr-00123-BO-10 (E.D.N.C. May 20, 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
