Filed: Jul. 16, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6319 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JASPER TUJUIAN ALLEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00299-BO-1) Submitted: June 29, 2010 Decided: July 16, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jasper Tujuian Allen, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6319 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JASPER TUJUIAN ALLEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00299-BO-1) Submitted: June 29, 2010 Decided: July 16, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jasper Tujuian Allen, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6319
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASPER TUJUIAN ALLEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:03-cr-00299-BO-1)
Submitted: June 29, 2010 Decided: July 16, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jasper Tujuian Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jasper Tujuian Allen appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) (2006) motion to
reopen his sentence and compel the Government to file a
substantial assistance motion pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Allen, No. 5:03-cr-00299-BO-1 (E.D.N.C.
Feb. 3, 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