Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Douglas, 09-7131 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-7131 Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 17, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7131 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. NIGEL NICHOLAS DOUGLAS, a/k/a Junior, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00131-HCM-7) Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 17, 2009 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7131 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. NIGEL NICHOLAS DOUGLAS, a/k/a Junior, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00131-HCM-7) Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 17, 2009 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nigel Nicholas Douglas, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nigel Nicholas Douglas appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Douglas’s motion for grand jury minutes and discovery and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Douglas, No. 2:93-cr-00131-HCM-7 (E.D. Va. filed June 1, 2009 & entered June 2, 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer