Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    United States v. Ricky Lewis, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ricky Jerome Lewis appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on a guideline amendment. An unpublished per curiam opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It thus affirmed the district court's denial of Lewis's motion for the reasons stated in that court's order.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Ricky Lewis, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Ricky Jerome Lewis appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on a guideline amendment. An unpublished per curiam opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It thus affirmed the district court's denial of Lewis's motion for the reasons stated in that court's order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-01-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7843

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ricky Jerome Lewis appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on a guideline amendment. An unpublished per curiam opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It thus affirmed the district court's denial of Lewis's motion for the reasons stated in that court's order.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Ricky Lewis, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ricky Jerome Lewis appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on a guideline amendment. An unpublished per curiam opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It thus affirmed the district court's denial of Lewis's motion for the reasons stated in that court's order.

    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. 12-7843

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    RICKY JEROME LEWIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
    Richard L.
    Voorhees, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00061-RLV-DCK-1)

    Submitted:

    January 22, 2013

    Decided: January 25, 2013

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ricky Jerome Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.


    Amy Elizabeth Ray,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Ricky Jerome Lewis appeals the district courts order
    denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for sentence
    reduction.
    error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.

    United States v. Lewis, No. 5:08-cr-00061-RLV-

    DCK-1 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 1, 2012).

    We dispense with oral argument

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented


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

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like