Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Mary King was ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). King failed to challenge the district court's reason for denying relief in her informal appellate brief. As a result, the appeals court limited its review to the issues raised in the informal brief and affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that oral arguments were not necessary.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-05-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-8212

    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 finding that Mary King was ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). King failed to challenge the district court's reason for denying relief in her informal appellate brief. As a result, the appeals court limited its review to the issues raised in the informal brief and affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Mary King was ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). King failed to challenge the district court's reason for denying relief in her informal appellate brief. As a result, the appeals court limited its review to the issues raised in the informal brief and affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that oral arguments were not necessary.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 09-8212

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MARY KING, a/k/a Kitty,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (3:04-cr-00259-HEH-4)

    Submitted:

    April 29, 2010

    Decided:

    May 3, 2010

    Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Mary King, Appellant Pro Se.


    Olivia N. Hawkins, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Mary King appeals the district courts order finding
    her

    ineligible

    3582(c)(2)

    for

    (2006).

    sentence
    In

    her

    reduction

    informal

    under

    appellate

    18

    U.S.C.

    brief,

    King

    failed to challenge the district courts reason supporting the


    denial of relief.

    King therefore has forfeited appellate review


    See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (The Court

    of the eligibility issue.


    will

    limit

    brief.).

    its

    review

    Accordingly,

    to

    the

    we

    issues

    affirm.

    raised
    We

    in

    the

    dispense

    informal

    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