Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Golson, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Golson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to compel the government to file a motion for a reduction in his sentence due to substantial assistance. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Golson did not establish that the government's refusal to file a motion for sentence reduction was based on an unconstitutional motive or was not rationally related to a legitimate government end. The court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-05-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6095

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Golson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to compel the government to file a motion for a reduction in his sentence due to substantial assistance. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Golson did not establish that the government's refusal to file a motion for sentence reduction was based on an unconstitutional motive or was not rationally related to a legitimate government end. The court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Golson, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Golson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to compel the government to file a motion for a reduction in his sentence due to substantial assistance. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Golson did not establish that the government's refusal to file a motion for sentence reduction was based on an unconstitutional motive or was not rationally related to a legitimate government end. The court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 05-6095

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MALCOLM EUGENE GOLSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Robert G. Doumar, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-01-47; CA-02-774)

    Submitted:

    May 19, 2005

    Decided:

    May 25, 2005

    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Malcolm Eugene Golson, Appellant Pro Se.


    Laura P. Tayman,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Malcolm Eugene Golson appeals the district courts order
    and opinion denying his motion to compel the Government to file a
    motion

    for

    assistance.

    reduction

    in

    his

    sentence

    due

    to

    substantial

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts

    order and affirm for the reasons of the district court.

    See United

    States v. Golson, Nos. CR-01-47, CA-02-774 (E.D. Va. Jan. 3, 2005).


    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