Filed: Jul. 16, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6699 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:97-cr-00100-BR-1) Submitted: June 27, 2012 Decided: July 16, 2012 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6699 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:97-cr-00100-BR-1) Submitted: June 27, 2012 Decided: July 16, 2012 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6699 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:97-cr-00100-BR-1) Submitted: June 27, 2012 Decided: July 16, 2012 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Ellerbe, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Edward Ellerbe appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction 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. Ellerbe, No. 5:97-cr-00100-BR-1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 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
