Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Bernard Middleton 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. It affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion for the reasons stated in its opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    Bernard Middleton 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. It affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion for the reasons stated in its opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-03-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-6036

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Bernard Middleton 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. It affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion for the reasons stated in its opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Bernard Middleton 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. It affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion for the reasons stated in its opinion. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the court 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. 09-6036

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    BERNARD MIDDLETON, a/k/a Cass,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
    District Judge. (1:92-cr-00348-CMH-3)

    Submitted:

    February 19, 2009

    Decided:

    March 11, 2009

    Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Bernard Middleton, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, Assistant


    United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Bernard Middleton appeals the district courts order
    denying

    his

    motion

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

    for

    reduction

    of

    sentence,

    18

    U.S.C.

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

    by the district court.

    United States v. Middleton, No. 1:92-cr-

    00348-CMH-3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 9, 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