Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Swift, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of David Swift's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. Swift was convicted in 1989 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision to deny Swift's motion. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials provided to the court. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-10-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-6777

    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    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of David Swift's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. Swift was convicted in 1989 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision to deny Swift's motion. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials provided to the court. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Swift, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of David Swift's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. Swift was convicted in 1989 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision to deny Swift's motion. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials provided to the court. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling.

    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. 09-6777

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DAVID SWIFT,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (2:89-cr-00235-JAB-1)

    Submitted:

    October 15, 2009

    Decided:

    October 21, 2009

    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David Swift, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant


    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Greensboro,
    North
    Carolina,
    for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    David Swift appeals the district courts order denying
    his

    motion

    (2006).
    error.

    for

    sentence

    reduction

    under

    18

    U.S.C.

    3582

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible


    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.

    United States v. Swift, No. 2:89-cr-00235-JAB-1

    (M.D.N.C. Apr. 3, 2009).

    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