Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Addison, 09-8002 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-8002 Visitors: 17
Filed: May 03, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8002 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. SEAN ROBERT ADDISON, a/k/a Bounce, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (0:99-cr-00659-CMC-4) Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 3, 2010 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 09-8002


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

SEAN ROBERT ADDISON, a/k/a Bounce,

                Defendant – Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (0:99-cr-00659-CMC-4)


Submitted:   April 29, 2010                   Decided:   May 3, 2010


Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Sean Robert Addison, Appellant Pro Se.     Marshall Prince, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Sean Robert Addison appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reduction of sentence, pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006).           We have reviewed the record and

find   no   reversible    error.      Accordingly,   we    affirm    for   the

reasons stated by the district court.         United States v. Addison,

No. 0:99-cr-00659-CMC-4 (D.S.C. Oct. 22, 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

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