Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Robert Richardson, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Robert Richardson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying Richardson's motion. The court also determined that oral arguments were not necessary because the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-06-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-6268

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Robert Richardson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying Richardson's motion. The court also determined that oral arguments were not necessary because the relevant 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
    2 views2 pages

    United States v. Robert Richardson, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robert Richardson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appellate court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's reasons for denying Richardson's motion. The court also determined that oral arguments were not necessary because the relevant 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 13-6268

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ROBERT ISADORE RICHARDSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
    Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00040-JPB-DJJ-1)

    Submitted:

    May 30, 2013

    Decided:

    June 5, 2013

    Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert Isadore Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.


    Paul Thomas
    Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Isadore Richardson appeals the district courts
    order denying relief on his motion seeking a reduction in his
    sentence,

    18

    U.S.C.

    3582(c)

    (2006).

    record and find no reversible error.

    We

    2013).
    legal
    before

    No.

    reviewed

    the

    Accordingly, we affirm for

    the reasons stated by the district court.


    Richardson,

    have

    3:05-cr-00040-JPB-DJJ-1

    United States v.

    (N.D.W.

    Va.

    Jan.

    28,

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like