Filed: Apr. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7640 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EUGENE SMALLS, a/k/a Gene Smalls, a/k/a Kishawnie Henry, a/k/a Quickness, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:96-cr-00131-RBS-1) Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 23, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Jud
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7640 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EUGENE SMALLS, a/k/a Gene Smalls, a/k/a Kishawnie Henry, a/k/a Quickness, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:96-cr-00131-RBS-1) Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 23, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judg..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7640
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EUGENE SMALLS, a/k/a Gene Smalls, a/k/a Kishawnie Henry, a/k/a Quickness,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:96-cr-00131-RBS-1)
Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 23, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene Smalls, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Smalls appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) 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. Smalls, No. 2:96-cr-00131-RBS-1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 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