Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 0 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court affirmed a district court's denial of Anthony Rouse's motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It therefore affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's opinion. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court affirmed a district court's denial of Anthony Rouse's motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It therefore affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's opinion. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-12-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-7745

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court affirmed a district court's denial of Anthony Rouse's motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It therefore affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's opinion. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court affirmed a district court's denial of Anthony Rouse's motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It therefore affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in that court's opinion. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    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. 09-7745

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    ANTHONY K. ROUSE,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James P. Jones, Chief
    District Judge. (3:01-cr-00015-jpj-2)

    Submitted:

    December 15, 2009

    Decided:

    December 21, 2009

    Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Anthony K. Rouse, Appellant Pro Se.


    Nancy Spodick Healey,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony K. Rouse appeals the district courts order
    denying

    his

    U.S.C.A.

    motion

    to

    3582(c)(2)

    modify
    (West

    his

    2000

    sentence
    &

    Supp.

    pursuant
    2009).

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    to
    We

    18
    have

    Accordingly,

    we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    See

    United States v. Rouse, No. 3:01-cr-00015-jpj-2 (W.D. Va. Sept.


    4, 2009).
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like