Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Rufus Houser, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    Rufus Houser appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence 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 denial for the reasons stated, that Houser did not qualify for a sentence reduction. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The facts and legal arguments were adequately presented so oral arguments were not required. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Houser's motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-06-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-6242

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Rufus Houser appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence 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 denial for the reasons stated, that Houser did not qualify for a sentence reduction. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The facts and legal arguments were adequately presented so oral arguments were not required. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Houser's motion.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Rufus Houser, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rufus Houser appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence 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 denial for the reasons stated, that Houser did not qualify for a sentence reduction. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The facts and legal arguments were adequately presented so oral arguments were not required. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Houser's motion.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 13-6242

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    RUFUS HOUSER, a/k/a Pookie,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
    Chief District Judge. (3:95-cr-00012-JPB-3)

    Submitted:

    June 18, 2013

    Decided:

    June 28, 2013

    Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Rufus Houser, Appellant Pro Se.


    Paul Thomas Camilletti,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Rufus

    Houser

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for


    reduction in sentence.
    reversible error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

    by the district court.

    United States v. Houser, No. 3:95-cr-

    00012-JPB-3 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 25, 2013).

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    presented in the materials before this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like