Filed: Jan. 27, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7364 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO DEMOND BYERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00002-FDW-3) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Demond Byer
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7364 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO DEMOND BYERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00002-FDW-3) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Demond Byers..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7364
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO DEMOND BYERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00002-FDW-3)
Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Demond Byers, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Antonio Demond Byers appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence filed
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the
record and find the district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying the motion. See United States v. Goines,
357 F.3d
469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (motion under § 3582(c) “is subject to
the discretion of the district court”); United States v. Legree,
205 F.3d 724, 727 (4th Cir. 2000). Thus, we affirm the district
court’s order for the reasons stated there. See United
States v. Byers, No. 3:01-cr-00002-FDW-3 (W.D.N.C. July 21,
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