Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Smith, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    Michael J. Smith appealed the district court's denial of his motion to compel the government to file a Rule 35(b) motion to reduce his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying the motion as stated in its March 7, 2006 opinion. The court dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented to the court already.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-08-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-6603

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Michael J. Smith appealed the district court's denial of his motion to compel the government to file a Rule 35(b) motion to reduce his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying the motion as stated in its March 7, 2006 opinion. The court dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented to the court already.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Smith, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Michael J. Smith appealed the district court's denial of his motion to compel the government to file a Rule 35(b) motion to reduce his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying the motion as stated in its March 7, 2006 opinion. The court dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented to the court already.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 06-6603

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MICHAEL J. SMITH,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Jerome B. Friedman,
    District Judge. (4:01-cr-00067-JBF-AL)

    Submitted: August 24, 2006

    Decided: August 30, 2006

    Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael J. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Rae McKeel, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael J. Smith appeals the district courts order
    denying his motion to compel a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion.
    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    See United States v. Smith, No. 4:01-cr-00067-JBF-AL (E.D.

    Va. Mar. 7, 2006).


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like