Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    United States v. James Green, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    James Thomas Green appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's order and found no reversible error, affirming the denial for the reasons stated by the district court. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials submitted.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. James Green, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    James Thomas Green appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's order and found no reversible error, affirming the denial for the reasons stated by the district court. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials submitted.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-06-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6236

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    James Thomas Green appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's order and found no reversible error, affirming the denial for the reasons stated by the district court. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials submitted.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. James Green, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    James Thomas Green appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's order and found no reversible error, affirming the denial for the reasons stated by the district court. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials submitted.

    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. 12-6236

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES THOMAS GREEN, a/k/a Green Billy,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Cameron McGowan Currie, District
    Judge. (3:05-cr-00464-CMC-6)

    Submitted:

    June 14, 2012

    Decided: June 19, 2012

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James Thomas Green, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    James Thomas Green appeals the district courts order
    denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
    3582(c)(2) (2006).
    reversible error.
    by

    the

    district

    We have reviewed the order and find no

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated


    court.

    United

    States

    3:05-cr-00464-CMC-6 (D.S.C. Jan. 20, 2012).


    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    v.

    Green,

    No.

    We dispense with

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like