Filed: May 31, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6538 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL LEWIS SMITH, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:00-cr-00004-RAJ-1) Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 31, 2012 Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mich
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6538 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL LEWIS SMITH, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:00-cr-00004-RAJ-1) Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 31, 2012 Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Micha..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6538 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL LEWIS SMITH, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:00-cr-00004-RAJ-1) Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 31, 2012 Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Lewis Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Lewis Smith, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying 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. Smith, No. 2:00-cr-00004-RAJ-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 2, 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
