Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Matata, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of a motion to reconsider reducing a defendant's sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The defendant sought to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of an order reducing his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its May 14, 2009 order. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-04-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-7127

    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 a district court's denial of a motion to reconsider reducing a defendant's sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The defendant sought to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of an order reducing his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its May 14, 2009 order. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Matata, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of a motion to reconsider reducing a defendant's sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The defendant sought to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of an order reducing his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its May 14, 2009 order. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were 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. 09-7127

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CHUNGA HAKI MATATA,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Shelby.
    Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (4:94-cr-00044-LHT-12)

    Submitted:

    April 22, 2010

    Decided:

    April 26, 2010

    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Chunga Haki Matata, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Chunga
    courts

    order

    Haki

    denying

    Matata
    his

    seeks

    motion

    to

    for

    appeal

    the

    district

    reconsideration

    of

    the

    order reducing his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) (2006).


    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    United

    States

    (W.D.N.C. May 14, 2009).

    v.

    Matata,

    No.

    4:94-cr-00044-LHT-12

    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