Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. William Johnston, 12-8138 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-8138 Visitors: 38
Filed: Mar. 06, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8138 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WILLIAM JOHNSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:00-cr-00135-GCM-1) Submitted: February 21, 2013 Decided: March 6, 2013 Before AGEE and DAVIS, 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8138 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WILLIAM JOHNSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:00-cr-00135-GCM-1) Submitted: February 21, 2013 Decided: March 6, 2013 Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Johnston, Appellant Pro Se. Robert John Gleason, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Johnston appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Johnston, No. 3:00-cr-00135- GCM-1 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 15, 2012). We deny as unnecessary Johnston’s motion for a certificate of appealability. 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