Filed: Oct. 01, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6558 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RICHARD L. DIXON, a/k/a E, a/k/a Earl, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:96-cr-00191-1) Submitted: September 15, 2010 Decided: October 1, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6558 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RICHARD L. DIXON, a/k/a E, a/k/a Earl, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:96-cr-00191-1) Submitted: September 15, 2010 Decided: October 1, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6558
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RICHARD L. DIXON, a/k/a E, a/k/a Earl,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:96-cr-00191-1)
Submitted: September 15, 2010 Decided: October 1, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard L. Dixon, for Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard L. Dixon appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for sentence
reduction, as well as its order denying his motion for
reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
orders. United States v. Dixon, No. 2:96-cr-00191-1 (S.D.W. Va.
filed June 29, 2009 & entered June 30, 2009; Mar. 16, 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