Filed: Feb. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7456 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAOUL LAFOND, a/k/a Chris Lafond, a/k/a Jim, a/k/a Jamaican Jim, a/k/a Derrick Burch, a/k/a Fletcher Busbee, a/k/a Ronald Elie, a/k/a Ronald Ely, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (6:96-cr-00212-WO-1) Submitted: January 28, 2016 Deci
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7456 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAOUL LAFOND, a/k/a Chris Lafond, a/k/a Jim, a/k/a Jamaican Jim, a/k/a Derrick Burch, a/k/a Fletcher Busbee, a/k/a Ronald Elie, a/k/a Ronald Ely, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (6:96-cr-00212-WO-1) Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decid..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7456
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAOUL LAFOND, a/k/a Chris Lafond, a/k/a Jim, a/k/a Jamaican
Jim, a/k/a Derrick Burch, a/k/a Fletcher Busbee, a/k/a
Ronald Elie, a/k/a Ronald Ely,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (6:96-cr-00212-WO-1)
Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: February 19, 2016
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raoul Lafond, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela
Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raoul Lafond appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582
(2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Lafond, No. 6:96-cr-00212-WO-1
(M.D.N.C. Sept. 2, 2015). 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