Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Darrell Johnson's motion to determine if Amendment 709 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines was clarifying or substantive. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court denied Johnson's request for appointment of counsel and affirmed the district court's ruling that Johnson's motion lacked merit.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-12-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-7307

    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 the district court's denial of Darrell Johnson's motion to determine if Amendment 709 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines was clarifying or substantive. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court denied Johnson's request for appointment of counsel and affirmed the district court's ruling that Johnson's motion lacked merit.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Darrell Johnson's motion to determine if Amendment 709 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines was clarifying or substantive. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court denied Johnson's request for appointment of counsel and affirmed the district court's ruling that Johnson's motion lacked merit.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 10-7307

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DARRELL P. JOHNSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.
    James P. Jones,
    District Judge. (2:01-cr-10079-jpj-1)

    Submitted:

    November 18, 2010

    Before SHEDD and


    Circuit Judge.

    AGEE,

    Circuit

    Decided:

    Judges,

    and

    December 2, 2010

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Darrell P. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.


    Eric Matthew Hurt,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Darrell P. Johnson appeals the district courts order
    denying

    his

    motion

    to

    determine

    whether

    Amendment

    709

    is

    clarifying or substantive pursuant to USSG 1B1.1.11(b)(2) and


    18 U.S.C. 3582(a), (c)(2) (2006).
    and find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed the record

    Accordingly, we deny Johnsons

    motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons


    stated by the district court.

    United States v. Johnson, No.

    2:01-cr-10079-jpj-1 (W.D. Va. Aug. 20, 2010).

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    the

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    AFFIRMED

    You might also like