Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    United States v. Benson, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Carvel Benson appealed the district court's 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 errors in the district court's reasoning. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling and denied Benson's request for appointment of counsel, determining that oral arguments were not necessary to decide the case.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Benson, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Carvel Benson appealed the district court's 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 errors in the district court's reasoning. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling and denied Benson's request for appointment of counsel, determining that oral arguments were not necessary to decide the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-08-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6826

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Carvel Benson appealed the district court's 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 errors in the district court's reasoning. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling and denied Benson's request for appointment of counsel, determining that oral arguments were not necessary to decide the case.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Benson, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Carvel Benson appealed the district court's 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 errors in the district court's reasoning. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling and denied Benson's request for appointment of counsel, determining that oral arguments were not necessary to decide the case.

    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. 02-6826

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CARVEL E. BENSON, a/k/a Sam, a/k/a Gene,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (CA-89-136-2)
    Submitted:

    July 25, 2002

    Decided:

    August 2, 2002

    Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Carvel E. Benson, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant


    United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Carvel E. Benson appeals the district courts order denying
    his motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. 3582(c)(2) (West 2000).
    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and
    find no reversible error.
    of the district court.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

    United States v. Benson, No. CA-89-136-2

    (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 2002).

    Bensons motion for appointment of

    counsel is denied. 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