Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Graham, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Emmett Madison Graham Jr.'s motion for correction or reduction of his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It noted that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) only permits reduction of a sentence if the Sentencing Commission has subsequently lowered the applicable sentencing range, which was not the case here. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-12-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-7109

    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 Emmett Madison Graham Jr.'s motion for correction or reduction of his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It noted that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) only permits reduction of a sentence if the Sentencing Commission has subsequently lowered the applicable sentencing range, which was not the case here. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Graham, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Emmett Madison Graham Jr.'s motion for correction or reduction of his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It noted that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) only permits reduction of a sentence if the Sentencing Commission has subsequently lowered the applicable sentencing range, which was not the case here. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-7109

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    EMMETT MADISON GRAHAM, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (7:97-cr-00098-F-1)

    Submitted:

    November 18, 2010

    Before SHEDD and


    Circuit Judge.

    AGEE,

    Circuit

    Decided:

    Judges,

    and

    December 1, 2010

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Emmett Madison Graham, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon


    James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Emmett
    courts

    order

    Madison

    denying

    Graham,

    his

    motion

    Jr.,
    for

    appeals

    the

    district

    correction/reduction

    of

    sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006) or Fed. R. Crim. P.


    52(b).

    We

    have

    reviewed

    error.

    Accordingly,

    we

    the

    record

    affirm.

    See

    and
    18

    find

    no

    U.S.C.

    reversible

    3582(c)(2)

    (permitting the court to reduce a sentence in the case of a


    defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based
    on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
    Sentencing Commission.)

    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