Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    United States v. Luster, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of Jamar Luster's motion for a sentence reduction. Luster appealed the denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) for a reduction of sentence. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The Court affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its opinion and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Luster, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of Jamar Luster's motion for a sentence reduction. Luster appealed the denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) for a reduction of sentence. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The Court affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its opinion and dispensed with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-03-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-8430

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of Jamar Luster's motion for a sentence reduction. Luster appealed the denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) for a reduction of sentence. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The Court affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its opinion and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Luster, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of Jamar Luster's motion for a sentence reduction. Luster appealed the denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) for a reduction of sentence. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The Court affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its opinion and dispensed with oral argument.

    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. 08-8430

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMAR LUSTER, a/k/a Woo,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
    Joseph R. Goodwin,
    Chief District Judge. (2:03-cr-00288-1)

    Submitted:

    February 26, 2009

    Decided:

    March 9, 2009

    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jamar Luster, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Assistant United


    States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jamar

    Luster

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying relief on his motion for reduction of sentence under 18


    U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006).

    We have reviewed the record and

    find

    Accordingly,

    no

    reversible

    error.

    reasons stated by the district court.

    we

    affirm

    for

    the

    United States v. Luster,

    No. 2:03-cr-00288-1 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 4, 2008); see United States


    v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2009).

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    presented in the materials before the court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like