Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Burgess, 11-6106 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-6106 Visitors: 8
Filed: May 24, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6106 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KINGDAWUD MUJAHID BURGESS, a/k/a David Clifton Burgess, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00429-GBL-1) Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-6106


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

KINGDAWUD MUJAHID BURGESS, a/k/a David Clifton Burgess,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00429-GBL-1)


Submitted:   May 19, 2011                         Decided:   May 24, 2011


Before TRAXLER,    Chief    Judge,   and   AGEE   and   KEENAN,   Circuit
Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kingdawud Mujahid Burgess, Appellant Pro Se.    Dennis Michael
Fitzpatrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Kingdawud Mujahid Burgess appeals the district court’s

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to

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. Burgess,

No. 1:06-cr-00429-GBL-1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 22, 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer