Filed: May 04, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6285 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARSON DARRELL RODGERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:02-cr-00374-WO-2) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carson Darrell Rod
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6285 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARSON DARRELL RODGERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:02-cr-00374-WO-2) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carson Darrell Rodg..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6285
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARSON DARRELL RODGERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:02-cr-00374-WO-2)
Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carson Darrell Rodgers, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael
Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carson Darrell Rodgers appeals the district court’s
order denying 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.
Rodgers, No. 1:02-cr-00374-WO-2 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 14, 2011). We
deny Rodgers’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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