Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Kevin Langston, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    18 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Kevin Langston's motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It therefore affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in United States v. Langston, No. 3:03-cr-00394-JRS-26 (E.D. Va. Apr. 17, 2012). The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-10-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6856

    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 the district court's denial of Kevin Langston's motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It therefore affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in United States v. Langston, No. 3:03-cr-00394-JRS-26 (E.D. Va. Apr. 17, 2012). The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Kevin Langston, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Kevin Langston's motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It therefore affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in United States v. Langston, No. 3:03-cr-00394-JRS-26 (E.D. Va. Apr. 17, 2012). The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    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. 12-6856

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    KEVIN LANGSTON, a/k/a Little One,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, District
    Judge. (3:03-cr-00394-JRS-26)

    Submitted:

    September 27, 2012

    Decided:

    October 2, 2012

    Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kevin Langston, Appellant Pro Se.


    Assistant United States Attorney,
    Appellee.

    Roderick Charles Young,


    Richmond, Virginia, for

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Kevin
    denying

    his

    18

    Langston
    U.S.C.

    appeals

    the

    3582(c)(2)

    district
    (2006)

    courts

    motion.

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    order

    We

    have

    Accordingly,

    we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    United

    States v. Langston, No. 3:03-cr-00394-JRS-26 (E.D. Va. Apr. 17,


    2012).
    legal
    before

    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