Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    United States v. David Thompson, JR., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of David Carl Thompson Jr.'s motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The court dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court and that further argument would not aid the decision.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. David Thompson, JR., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of David Carl Thompson Jr.'s motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The court dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court and that further argument would not aid the decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-10-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-7026

    Original Title

    United States v. David Thompson, Jr., 4th Cir. (2013)

    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 David Carl Thompson Jr.'s motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The court dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court and that further argument would not aid the decision.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. David Thompson, JR., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of David Carl Thompson Jr.'s motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The court dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court and that further argument would not aid 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. 13-7026

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    DAVID CARL THOMPSON, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
    N. Carlton Tilley,
    Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00477-NCT-1)

    Submitted:

    October 22, 2013

    Decided:

    October 25, 2013

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David Carl Thompson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett


    Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    David Carl Thompson, Jr., appeals the district courts
    order denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) (2006) motion.
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We have

    Accordingly,

    we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    United

    States v. Thompson, No. 1:03-cr-00477-NCT-1 (M.D.N.C. June 10,


    2013).
    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