Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Jeltress Williamson, 12-7116 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-7116 Visitors: 37
Filed: Dec. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7116 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JELTRESS CHENICO WILLIAMSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (1:98-cr-00190-JAB-1) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7116 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JELTRESS CHENICO WILLIAMSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (1:98-cr-00190-JAB-1) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeltress Chenico Williamson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeltress Chenico Williamson appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Williamson’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Williamson has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer