Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of Adelson Michel's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate panel found no reversible error in the district court's decision. It also denied Michel's request to appoint counsel, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. The panel dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of Adelson Michel's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate panel found no reversible error in the district court's decision. It also denied Michel's request to appoint counsel, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. The panel dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-02-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6985

    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    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of Adelson Michel's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate panel found no reversible error in the district court's decision. It also denied Michel's request to appoint counsel, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. The panel dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of Adelson Michel's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate panel found no reversible error in the district court's decision. It also denied Michel's request to appoint counsel, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. The panel dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues adequately presented in the case 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. 08-6985

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    ADELSON MICHEL,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District
    Judge. (5:06-cr-00041-gec-1)

    Submitted:

    February 19, 2009

    Decided:

    February 23, 2009

    Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Adelson Michel, Appellant Pro Se.


    Jean Barrett Hudson,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Adelson
    granting

    Michel

    reduction

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

    error.

    counsel

    district court.

    in

    appeals
    his

    district

    sentence

    pursuant

    courts
    to

    18

    order
    U.S.C.

    We have reviewed the record and find no


    Accordingly,

    and

    the

    affirm

    we

    for

    the

    deny

    Michels

    reasons

    motion

    stated

    by

    to
    the

    See United States v. Michel, No. 5:06-cr-00041-

    gec-1 (W.D. Va. June 3, 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