Filed: Aug. 11, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6271 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRUCE LEE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:02-cr-00579-CWH-2) Submitted: July 20, 2010 Decided: August 11, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6271 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRUCE LEE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:02-cr-00579-CWH-2) Submitted: July 20, 2010 Decided: August 11, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6271
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRUCE LEE JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (4:02-cr-00579-CWH-2)
Submitted: July 20, 2010 Decided: August 11, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruce Lee Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. William E. Day, II, Rose
Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bruce Lee Johnson appeals the district court’s order
granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Dillon v.
United States,
2010 WL 2400109 (U.S. June 17, 2010) (No.
09-6338); United States v. Dunphy,
531 F.3d 247, 250-52 (4th
Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. United States v. Johnson, No. 4:02-cr-
00579-CWH-2 (D.S.C. Feb. 1, 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