Filed: Jun. 30, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6182 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. VINCENT LAMAR BOULWARE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00082-MR-1) Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 30, 2017 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Lamar Boulware,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6182 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. VINCENT LAMAR BOULWARE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00082-MR-1) Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 30, 2017 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Lamar Boulware, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6182
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VINCENT LAMAR BOULWARE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00082-MR-1)
Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 30, 2017
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vincent Lamar Boulware, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, Assistant United States
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vincent Lamar Boulware appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Boulware, No. 1:08-cr-00082-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2017). 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