Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Rodney Wilson, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Rodney Kashawn Wilson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling denying Wilson's motion for the reasons stated by the district court in United States v. Wilson, No. 2:09-cr-00164-RAJ-FBS-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 27 & entered Feb. 29, 2012). The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-01-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7728

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Rodney Kashawn Wilson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling denying Wilson's motion for the reasons stated by the district court in United States v. Wilson, No. 2:09-cr-00164-RAJ-FBS-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 27 & entered Feb. 29, 2012). The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument as 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
    4 views2 pages

    United States v. Rodney Wilson, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Rodney Kashawn Wilson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling denying Wilson's motion for the reasons stated by the district court in United States v. Wilson, No. 2:09-cr-00164-RAJ-FBS-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 27 & entered Feb. 29, 2012). The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument as 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
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-7728

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    RODNEY KASHAWN WILSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (2:09-cr-00164-RAJ-FBS-1)

    Submitted:

    January 22, 2013

    Decided: January 25, 2013

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Rodney Kashawn Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.


    Damian H. Hansen,
    Special Assistant United States Attorney, Robert Joseph Seidel,
    Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Rodney

    Kashawn

    Wilson

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006) for


    reduction of sentence.
    reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

    by the district court.


    00164-RAJ-FBS-1
    2012).
    legal
    before

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    (E.D.

    United States v. Wilson, No. 2:09-crVa.

    filed

    Feb.

    27

    &

    entered

    Feb.

    29,

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like