Filed: Aug. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6704 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DARREN BATES, a/k/a Tahoe, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:08-cr-00590-CMC-3) Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6704 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DARREN BATES, a/k/a Tahoe, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:08-cr-00590-CMC-3) Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6704
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DARREN BATES, a/k/a Tahoe,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00590-CMC-3)
Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darren Bates, Appellant Pro Se. James Chris Leventis, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darren Bates appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (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.
Bates, No. 3:08-cr-00590-CMC-3 (D.S.C. Apr. 3, 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