Filed: Dec. 02, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7035 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES EDWARD ROSEBORO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00137-MR-1) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 2, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Ros
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7035 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES EDWARD ROSEBORO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00137-MR-1) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 2, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Rose..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7035 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES EDWARD ROSEBORO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00137-MR-1) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 2, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Roseboro, Appellant Pro Se. Robert John Gleason, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Edward Roseboro appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduction in sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Roseboro, No. 3:02-cr- 00137-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. May 21, 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
