Filed: Oct. 12, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7112 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERMAINE PIERRE THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:02-cr-00009-F-1) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 12, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jermaine Pie
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7112 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERMAINE PIERRE THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:02-cr-00009-F-1) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 12, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jermaine Pier..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7112
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERMAINE PIERRE THOMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:02-cr-00009-F-1)
Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 12, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jermaine Pierre Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Pierre Thomas appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for reconsideration of that court’s
denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction
of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Thomas, No.
7:02-cr-00009-F-1 (E.D.N.C. July 12, 2010); see United States v.
Goodwyn,
596 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 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