Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    United States v. Porter, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of Clyde E. Porter, Jr.'s motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Porter appealed the district court's ruling, but the Court of Appeals found no reversible error after reviewing the record. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its ruling.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Porter, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of Clyde E. Porter, Jr.'s motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Porter appealed the district court's ruling, but the Court of Appeals found no reversible error after reviewing the record. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its ruling.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-06-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6648

    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 Clyde E. Porter, Jr.'s motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Porter appealed the district court's ruling, but the Court of Appeals found no reversible error after reviewing the record. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its ruling.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Porter, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of Clyde E. Porter, Jr.'s motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Porter appealed the district court's ruling, but the Court of Appeals found no reversible error after reviewing the record. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its ruling.

    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. 08-6648

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CLYDE E. PORTER, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (3:00-cr-00085-JRS-1)

    Submitted:

    June 19, 2008

    Decided:

    June 25, 2008

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Clyde E. Porter, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


    John Staige Davis, V,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Clyde E. Porter, Jr., appeals the district courts order
    denying

    his

    motion

    3582(c)(2) (2000).

    for

    sentence

    reduction

    under

    18

    U.S.C.

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by


    the district court.

    United States v. Porter, No. 3:00-cr-00085-

    JRS-1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 9, 2008).

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like