United States v. Alexander

390 F. App'x 251
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 6, 2010
DocketNo. 10-6557
StatusPublished

This text of 390 F. App'x 251 (United States v. Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Alexander, 390 F. App'x 251 (4th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

[252]*252Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Edward Alexander appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the court’s earlier order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduction in sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 234-36 (4th Cir.2010) (holding that district court lacked authority to grant defendant’s motion to reconsider, filed eight months after the district court’s order ruling on original § 3582(c)(2) motion). 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Goodwyn
596 F.3d 233 (Fourth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
390 F. App'x 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-alexander-ca4-2010.