Filed: May 27, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6181 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD DONNELL RUDISILL, a/k/a Sld Dft 1:01-48-7, a/k/a Ricky, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:01-cr-00048-MR-7) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 27, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublishe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6181 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD DONNELL RUDISILL, a/k/a Sld Dft 1:01-48-7, a/k/a Ricky, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:01-cr-00048-MR-7) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 27, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6181
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD DONNELL RUDISILL, a/k/a Sld Dft 1:01-48-7, a/k/a
Ricky,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:01-cr-00048-MR-7)
Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 27, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Donnell Rudisill, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Donnell Rudisill appeals the district court’s
denial of 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.
Rudisill, No. 1:01-cr-00048-MR-7 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 15, 2010). 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