Filed: Jun. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6305 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. STEVEN ISAAC TROTMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:01-cr-00180-RAJ-2) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Isaac Trotman, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6305 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. STEVEN ISAAC TROTMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:01-cr-00180-RAJ-2) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Isaac Trotman, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6305 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. STEVEN ISAAC TROTMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:01-cr-00180-RAJ-2) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Isaac Trotman, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven Isaac Trotman appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Trotman, No. 2:01-cr-00180-RAJ-2 (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 3 & entered Feb. 6, 2012). 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
