Filed: Jan. 20, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7362 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WILLIE REYNOLDS, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:90-cr-00054-NCT-1) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 20, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Reynol
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7362 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WILLIE REYNOLDS, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:90-cr-00054-NCT-1) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 20, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Reynold..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7362
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WILLIE REYNOLDS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton
Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:90-cr-00054-NCT-1)
Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 20, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Reynolds appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. See United States v. Reynolds, No. 6:90-cr-00054-NCT-1
(M.D.N.C. Sept. 10, 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