Filed: Oct. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6856 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. KEVIN LANGSTON, a/k/a Little One, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00394-JRS-26) Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Langston,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6856 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. KEVIN LANGSTON, a/k/a Little One, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00394-JRS-26) Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Langston, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6856
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEVIN LANGSTON, a/k/a Little One,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:03-cr-00394-JRS-26)
Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Langston, Appellant Pro Se. Roderick Charles Young,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Langston 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. Langston, No. 3:03-cr-00394-JRS-26 (E.D. Va. Apr. 17,
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