Filed: Oct. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6651 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS ONEAL GOVAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (5:06-cr-00750-MBS-1) Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Travis Oneal Gova
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6651 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS ONEAL GOVAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (5:06-cr-00750-MBS-1) Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Travis Oneal Govan..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6651
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRAVIS ONEAL GOVAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00750-MBS-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Travis Oneal Govan, Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Travis Oneal Govan appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c) (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. Govan, No. 5:06-cr-
00750-MBS-1 (D.S.C. Apr. 22, 2016). 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