Filed: Nov. 25, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7510 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TONY B. ALEXANDER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:95-cr-00178-MR) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony B. Alexander
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7510 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TONY B. ALEXANDER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:95-cr-00178-MR) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony B. Alexander,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7510
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TONY B. ALEXANDER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:95-cr-00178-MR)
Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tony B. Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tony Alexander appeals from the district court’s order
granting in part his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006), but denying his motion to the
extent that Alexander sought a resentencing. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Alexander, No. 3:95-cr-00178-MR (W.D.N.C. Aug. 4, 2009); see
United States v. Dunphy,
551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied,
129 S. Ct. 2401 (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