Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Sidney Kenneth Mitchell, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Sidney Kenneth Mitchell's motion to reduce his sentence. The unpublished opinion found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. Mitchell appealed pro se, but the appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in existing court documents. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling denying Mitchell's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-04-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6026

    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 Sidney Kenneth Mitchell's motion to reduce his sentence. The unpublished opinion found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. Mitchell appealed pro se, but the appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in existing court documents. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling denying Mitchell's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Sidney Kenneth Mitchell, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Sidney Kenneth Mitchell's motion to reduce his sentence. The unpublished opinion found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. Mitchell appealed pro se, but the appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in existing court documents. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling denying Mitchell's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 12-6026

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    SIDNEY KENNETH MITCHELL,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
    Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00068-JPB-1)

    Submitted:

    April 19, 2012

    Decided:

    April 25, 2012

    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Sidney Kenneth Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.


    Thomas Oliver
    Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Sidney Kenneth Mitchell appeals the district courts
    order denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a
    reduction of sentence.
    reversible error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

    by the district court.

    United States v. Mitchell, No. 3:06-cr-

    00068-JPB-1 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 16, 2011).

    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