Filed: Mar. 25, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6328 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLYDE DIAL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:02-cr-00090-F-1) Submitted: November 16, 2009 Decided: March 25, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6328 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLYDE DIAL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:02-cr-00090-F-1) Submitted: November 16, 2009 Decided: March 25, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6328
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CLYDE DIAL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:02-cr-00090-F-1)
Submitted: November 16, 2009 Decided: March 25, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clyde Dial, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Rudolf
A. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clyde Dial, Jr. appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduction
in 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. Dial, No. 7:02-cr-00090-F-1
(E.D.N.C. Feb. 9, 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