Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Howard, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Kennita Howard's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented to the court and additional argument would not aid in the decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-04-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-6478

    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 Kennita Howard's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented to 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
    4 views2 pages

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Kennita Howard's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented to 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 09-6478

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    KENNITA HOWARD, a/k/a Eyez,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
    Irene M. Keeley,
    District Judge. (1:06-cr-00106-IMK-JSK-1)

    Submitted:

    April 17, 2009

    Decided:

    April 23, 2009

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kennita Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant


    United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Kennita
    denying

    her

    Howard

    motion

    for

    3582(c)(2) (2006).
    reversible error.

    appeals
    sentence

    the

    district

    reduction

    adequately

    18

    U.S.C.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated


    United States v. Howard, No. 1:06-cr-

    00106-IMK-JSK-1 (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 3, 2009).


    argument

    under

    order

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    by the district court.

    oral

    courts

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    We dispense with

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    AFFIRMED

    You might also like