Filed: Dec. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7584 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMETRIUS LAQUAN JUDGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cr-01317-TLW-5) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jametrius Laquan Judge, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7584 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMETRIUS LAQUAN JUDGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cr-01317-TLW-5) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jametrius Laquan Judge, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7584 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMETRIUS LAQUAN JUDGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cr-01317-TLW-5) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jametrius Laquan Judge, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Mikell Johnson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jametrius Laquan Judge appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
