Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    United States v. Rudolph Murray, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rudolph Valentino Murray appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Murray was ineligible for the sentence reduction he sought. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials before the court and additional argument would not aid in the decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    United States v. Rudolph Murray, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Rudolph Valentino Murray appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Murray was ineligible for the sentence reduction he sought. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials before the court and additional argument would not aid in the decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-09-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7160

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Rudolph Valentino Murray appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Murray was ineligible for the sentence reduction he sought. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials before the court and additional argument would not aid in the decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

    United States v. Rudolph Murray, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rudolph Valentino Murray appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Murray was ineligible for the sentence reduction he sought. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials before the court and additional argument would not aid in the decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-7160

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    RUDOLPH VALENTINO MURRAY, a/k/a Trini, a/k/a Rudy,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District
    Judge. (2:97-cr-00025-AWA-1)

    Submitted:

    September 11, 2012

    Decided:

    September 14, 2012

    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Rudolph Valentino Murray, Appellant Pro Se.


    Laura Marie
    Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Rudolph Valentino Murray appeals the district courts
    order denying his motion seeking a reduction of sentence under
    18 U.S.C. 3582(c) (2006).

    We have reviewed the record and

    find no reversible error, given that Murray is ineligible for


    the

    reduction

    that

    he

    seeks.

    Accordingly,

    judgment of the district court.

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    affirm

    the

    United States v. Murray, No.

    2:97-cr-00025-AWA-1 (E.D. Va. May 31, 2012).


    oral

    we

    and

    materials

    We dispense with

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like