Filed: Feb. 08, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6763 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY JOHNSON, a/k/a AJ, Defendant -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. (2:95-cr-00249-TDS-7) Submitted: January 18, 2012 Decided: February 8, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthon
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6763 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY JOHNSON, a/k/a AJ, Defendant -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. (2:95-cr-00249-TDS-7) Submitted: January 18, 2012 Decided: February 8, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6763
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY JOHNSON, a/k/a AJ,
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. (2:95-cr-00249-TDS-7)
Submitted: January 18, 2012 Decided: February 8, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Johnson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Anthony Johnson appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for
reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Johnson, No. 2:95-cr-
00249-TDS-7 (M.D.N.C. June 2, 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