Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Vaughn, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    1) Sherman Eugene Vaughn appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons stated. 3) The Fourth Circuit also denied Vaughn's motion for a stay pending appeal and his motion to remand the case to the district court, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-12-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-7934

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Sherman Eugene Vaughn appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons stated. 3) The Fourth Circuit also denied Vaughn's motion for a stay pending appeal and his motion to remand the case to the district court, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Vaughn, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Sherman Eugene Vaughn appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons stated. 3) The Fourth Circuit also denied Vaughn's motion for a stay pending appeal and his motion to remand the case to the district court, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 08-7934

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    SHERMAN EUGENE VAUGHN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
    District Judge. (1:06-cr-00067-CMH-1)

    Submitted:

    December 9, 2008

    Decided:

    December 22, 2008

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Sherman Eugene Vaughn, Appellant Pro Se.


    Tracy DohertyMcCormick, Daniel Joseph Grooms, III, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Stephen Andrew Sola, Special Assistant United States
    Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Sherman
    courts

    order

    Eugene

    denying

    Vaughn

    his

    appeals

    motion

    for

    reduction

    pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) (2006).


    record and find no reversible error.

    from

    the

    district

    of

    sentence

    We have reviewed the

    Accordingly, we affirm for

    the reasons stated by the district court.

    United States v.

    Vaughn, No. 1:06-cr-00067-CMH-1 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 25, 2008;


    entered Aug. 26, 2008).
    pending

    appeal

    district
    facts

    court.

    and

    materials

    and

    legal
    before

    his

    We

    We deny Vaughns motion for a stay


    motion

    dispense

    contentions
    the

    court

    to

    with

    remand
    oral

    this

    argument

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    case

    to

    the

    because

    the

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like