Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    United States v. Childress, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Little Tom Childress, Jr.'s motion for immediate termination of his supervised release term. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. As the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented to the lower court, the appellate court affirmed the ruling without needing oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Childress, 4th Cir. (2008)

    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 Little Tom Childress, Jr.'s motion for immediate termination of his supervised release term. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. As the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented to the lower court, the appellate court affirmed the ruling without needing oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-12-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-7224

    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 Little Tom Childress, Jr.'s motion for immediate termination of his supervised release term. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. As the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented to the lower court, the appellate court affirmed the ruling without needing oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Childress, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Little Tom Childress, Jr.'s motion for immediate termination of his supervised release term. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. As the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented to the lower court, the appellate court affirmed the ruling without needing oral argument.

    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. 08-7224

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LITTLE TOM CHILDRESS, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (7:94-cr-40106-jlk-6)

    Submitted:

    December 16, 2008

    Decided:

    December 23, 2008

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Little Tom Childress, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


    Ronald Andrew
    Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Little

    Tom

    Childress,

    Jr.,

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts order denying his motion for immediate termination of


    his supervised release term.
    find

    no

    reasons

    reversible

    district

    because

    the

    United

    for

    the

    We

    argument

    court.

    affirm

    Childress, No. 7:94-cr-40106-jlk-6 (W.D. Va. July 10, 2008).


    oral

    the

    we

    v.

    with

    by

    Accordingly,

    States

    dispense

    stated

    error.

    We have reviewed the record and

    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