Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Jordan, 11-6247 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-6247 Visitors: 16
Filed: May 24, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6247 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JOVAN JORDAN, a/k/a Javon Jordan, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00486-HEH-2) Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jovan J
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-6247


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

JOVAN JORDAN, a/k/a Javon Jordan,

                Defendant – Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:05-cr-00486-HEH-2)


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


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


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jovan Jordan, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel Cooke, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Jovan   Jordan   appeals     the   district   court’s   order

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence

reduction.    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error.   Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court.   United States v. Jordan, No. 3:05-cr-00486-HEH-

2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2011).          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