Filed: May 20, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8044 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. FAIZA MAXWELL, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00152-FDW-11) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: May 20, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Faiza Maxwel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8044 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. FAIZA MAXWELL, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00152-FDW-11) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: May 20, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Faiza Maxwell..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8044
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
FAIZA MAXWELL,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00152-FDW-11)
Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: May 20, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Faiza Maxwell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Faiza Maxwell appeals the district court’s memorandum
decision and order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006)
motion for reduction of 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. Maxwell,
No. 3:02-cr-00152-FDW-11 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 2008). 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