Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of Christopher Leon Moore's motion to reduce his sentence. Moore appealed the district court's ruling under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court also denied Moore's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of Christopher Leon Moore's motion to reduce his sentence. Moore appealed the district court's ruling under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court also denied Moore's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-07-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-6517

    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 a district court's denial of Christopher Leon Moore's motion to reduce his sentence. Moore appealed the district court's ruling under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court also denied Moore's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of Christopher Leon Moore's motion to reduce his sentence. Moore appealed the district court's ruling under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court also denied Moore's motion for appointment of counsel.

    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. 09-6517

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    CHRISTOPHER LEON MOORE,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    W. Earl Britt, Senior
    District Judge. (7:01-cr-00083-BR-1)

    Submitted:

    June 12, 2009

    Decided:

    July 7, 2009

    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Christopher Leon Moore, Appellant Pro Se.


    R. A. Renfer, Jr.,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Christopher

    Leon

    Moore

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C.


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

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

    by the district court.

    United States v. Moore, No. 7:01-cr-

    00083-BR-1 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 12, 2009).


    of counsel is denied.

    The motion for appointment

    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