Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Maxwell, 08-8044A (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-8044A Visitors: 32
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8044 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. FAIZA MAXWELL, Defendant – Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
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                              UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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