Filed: Dec. 29, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7251 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS LEQUINN SARVIS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 10-7389 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS LEQUINN SARVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cr-01241-TLW-1) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 29, 2010 Before GRE
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7251 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS LEQUINN SARVIS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 10-7389 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS LEQUINN SARVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cr-01241-TLW-1) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 29, 2010 Before GREG..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7251 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS LEQUINN SARVIS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 10-7389 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS LEQUINN SARVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cr-01241-TLW-1) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 29, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Travis Lequinn Sarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Travis Lequinn Sarvis appeals the district court’s orders reducing his sentence pursuant to the Government’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion and denying Sarvis’ motion for a further reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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 3
