Filed: Aug. 03, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6543 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GEORGE BILLY LEE GANTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (8:04-cr-01013-HFF-1) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Billy Lee Gantt, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6543 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GEORGE BILLY LEE GANTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (8:04-cr-01013-HFF-1) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Billy Lee Gantt, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6543
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GEORGE BILLY LEE GANTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(8:04-cr-01013-HFF-1)
Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Billy Lee Gantt, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George Billy Lee Gantt appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a
sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Gantt, No.
8:04-cr-01013-HFF-1 (D.S.C. Apr. 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