Filed: Oct. 21, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7161 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DUNDRIELLE LEFRANK BLAKENEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00140-GCM-1) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reita P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7161 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DUNDRIELLE LEFRANK BLAKENEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00140-GCM-1) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reita Pa..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7161 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DUNDRIELLE LEFRANK BLAKENEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00140-GCM-1) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reita Pauline Pendry, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dundrielle Lefrank Blakeney appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduced 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. Blakeney, No. 3:02-cr-00140-GCM-1 (W.D.N.C. June 9, 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
