Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    John D. Riddick, Sr. appealed the district court's denial of his motion for reduction of sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion for the reasons stated in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials and additional argument would not aid in the decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-10-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6242

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    John D. Riddick, Sr. appealed the district court's denial of his motion for reduction of sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion for the reasons stated in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials and additional argument would not aid in the decision.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    John D. Riddick, Sr. appealed the district court's denial of his motion for reduction of sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion for the reasons stated in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials and additional argument would not aid in the decision.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 10-6242

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JOHN D. RIDDICK, SR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
    Judge. (2:00-cr-00067-JBF-2)

    Submitted:

    September 28, 2010

    Decided:

    October 13, 2010

    Before KING, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    John D. Riddick, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,


    Joseph Evan DePadilla, Assistant United States Attorneys,
    Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    John

    D.

    Riddick,

    Sr.,

    appeals

    the

    district

    order denying his motion for reduction of sentence.


    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    courts
    We have

    Accordingly,

    we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    United

    States v. Riddick, No. 2:00-cr-00067-JBF-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 27,


    2008).
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like