Filed: Jun. 23, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6631 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. FLOYD JUNIOR POWELL, a/k/a Dick, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:99-cr-00012-RLV-6) Submitted: June 7, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Floyd Jun
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6631 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. FLOYD JUNIOR POWELL, a/k/a Dick, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:99-cr-00012-RLV-6) Submitted: June 7, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Floyd Juni..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6631
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
FLOYD JUNIOR POWELL, a/k/a Dick,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:99-cr-00012-RLV-6)
Submitted: June 7, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Floyd Junior Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Floyd Junior Powell appeals the district court’s order
denying 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. See United States v.
Powell, No. 5:99-cr-00012-RLV-6 (W.D.N.C. April 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