Filed: Mar. 08, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7467 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LUTHER J. MCLOYD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:94-cr-00070-BO-16) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 8, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luther J. Mc
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7467 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LUTHER J. MCLOYD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:94-cr-00070-BO-16) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 8, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luther J. McL..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7467
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUTHER J. MCLOYD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (4:94-cr-00070-BO-16)
Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 8, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Luther J. McLoyd, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth
Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luther J. McLoyd appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion for
reduction of sentence under 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. McLoyd, No. 4:94-cr-00070-BO-16
(E.D.N.C. Oct. 5, 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