Filed: Dec. 28, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7157 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GEORGE DANIEL PALMER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:00-cr-00080-sgw-1) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 28, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Daniel Palmer, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7157 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GEORGE DANIEL PALMER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:00-cr-00080-sgw-1) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 28, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Daniel Palmer, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7157 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GEORGE DANIEL PALMER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:00-cr-00080-sgw-1) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 28, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Daniel Palmer, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Daniel Palmer appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence based on rehabilitation, family circumstances, and the crack cocaine amendments. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Palmer, No. 7:00-cr-00080-sgw-1 (W.D. Va. Aug. 10, 2010). We deny Palmer’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
