Filed: Jun. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6625 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMI BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00488-REP-6) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 20, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sami Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6625 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMI BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00488-REP-6) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 20, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sami Brown, Appellant Pro Se. M..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6625 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMI BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00488-REP-6) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 20, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sami Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Arlen Jagels, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sami Brown 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. Brown, No. 3:08-cr-00488-REP-6 (E.D. Va. Mar. 19, 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
