Filed: May 03, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7662 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL LEROY DARITY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:95-cr-00132-MR-1) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Leroy Darity, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7662 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL LEROY DARITY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:95-cr-00132-MR-1) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Leroy Darity, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7662
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL LEROY DARITY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:95-cr-00132-MR-1)
Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Leroy Darity, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Leroy Darity appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion for modification of sentence,
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Darity,
No. 1:95-cr-00132-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 12, 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