Filed: Nov. 05, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7083 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ERIC COSTINO SHARPE, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00190-BO-1) Submitted: October 30, 2009 Decided: November 5, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Costino Sharp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7083 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ERIC COSTINO SHARPE, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00190-BO-1) Submitted: October 30, 2009 Decided: November 5, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Costino Sharpe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7083 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ERIC COSTINO SHARPE, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00190-BO-1) Submitted: October 30, 2009 Decided: November 5, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Costino Sharpe, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric Costino Sharpe appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 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. See United States v. Sharpe, No. 5:04-cr-00190-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. filed June 2, 2009; entered June 3, 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
