Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    United States v. Charles Adams, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Charles Jerome Adams appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582. A panel of the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its decision. The panel found no reversible error in the district court's order and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Charles Adams, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Charles Jerome Adams appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582. A panel of the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its decision. The panel found no reversible error in the district court's order and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-04-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7811

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Charles Jerome Adams appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582. A panel of the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its decision. The panel found no reversible error in the district court's order and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments 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
    1 views2 pages

    United States v. Charles Adams, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Charles Jerome Adams appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582. A panel of the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its decision. The panel found no reversible error in the district court's order and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal arguments 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. 15-7811

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    CHARLES JEROME ADAMS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Aiken.
    Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
    District Judge. (1:91-cr-00291-PMD-2)

    Submitted:

    April 21, 2016

    Decided:

    April 25, 2016

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles Jerome Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi,


    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles

    Jerome

    Adams

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582 (2012) motion for a reduction of


    his

    sentence.

    We

    reversible error.
    by

    the

    district

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    argument

    adequately

    find

    no

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated


    court.

    United

    States

    1:91-cr-00291-PMD-2 (D.S.C. Oct. 27, 2015).


    oral

    and

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    v.

    Adams,

    No.

    We dispense with
    contentions
    this

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like