Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Chase, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Clynton John Chase appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Chase's motion for the reasons stated by the lower court in United States v. Chase, No. 3:91-cr-00086-GCM-2 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 18, 2008). The appellate panel dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-12-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-8063

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Clynton John Chase appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Chase's motion for the reasons stated by the lower court in United States v. Chase, No. 3:91-cr-00086-GCM-2 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 18, 2008). The appellate panel dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Chase, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Clynton John Chase appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Chase's motion for the reasons stated by the lower court in United States v. Chase, No. 3:91-cr-00086-GCM-2 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 18, 2008). The appellate panel dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 08-8063

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    CLYNTON JOHN CHASE,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (3:91-cr-00086-GCM-2)

    Submitted:

    December 11, 2008

    Decided:

    December 18, 2008

    Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Claire J. Rauscher, Federal Public Defender, Tanzania Chevon


    Cannon-Eckerle, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA,
    INC.,
    Steven
    George
    Slawinski,
    Assistant
    Federal
    Public
    Defender, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Adam
    Christopher Morris, C. Nicks Williams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY, Michael E. Savage, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Clynton John Chase appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his motion for reduction of sentence under
    18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006).
    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    We have reviewed the record and


    Accordingly,

    reasons stated by the district court.

    we

    affirm

    for

    the

    United States v. Chase

    No. 3:91-cr-00086-GCM-2 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 18, 2008).

    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