Filed: Nov. 25, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7614 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEITH LAVON BURGESS, a/k/a Buck Black, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:03-cr-00107-TLW-1) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith L
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7614 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEITH LAVON BURGESS, a/k/a Buck Black, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:03-cr-00107-TLW-1) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith La..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7614
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEITH LAVON BURGESS, a/k/a Buck Black,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:03-cr-00107-TLW-1)
Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keith Lavon Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keith Lavon Burgess appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United States v.
Burgess, No. 4:03-cr-00107-TLW-1 (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 2009). See
United States v. Hood,
556 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2009), cert.
denied, __ U.S. __,
2009 WL 2496498 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2009) (No. 09-
5868). 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