Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Christopher Harris, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of Christopher Harris's motion to compel the government to move for a sentence reduction based on substantial assistance. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its opinion. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court and that argument would not aid in the decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-08-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6861

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of Christopher Harris's motion to compel the government to move for a sentence reduction based on substantial assistance. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its opinion. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court and that argument would not aid in the decision.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Christopher Harris, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of Christopher Harris's motion to compel the government to move for a sentence reduction based on substantial assistance. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its opinion. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court and that argument would not aid in the decision.

    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. 12-6861

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    CHRISTOPHER EUGENE HARRIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
    District Judge. (1:07-cr-00115-MR-1)

    Submitted:

    August 16, 2012

    Decided:

    August 21, 2012

    Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Christopher Eugene Harris, 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:
    Christopher Eugene Harris appeals the district courts
    order denying his motion to compel the Government to move for a
    sentence reduction based on substantial assistance.
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We have

    Accordingly,

    we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.


    States

    v.

    2012).
    legal
    before

    Harris,

    No.

    1:07-cr-00115-MR-1

    (W.D.N.C.

    United

    April

    18,

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like