United States v. Cabiness

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Cabiness

325 F. App'x 226

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 26, 2009·No. No. 08-7546·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Kirkwood Donnell Cabiness appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006), and its subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Cabiness, No. 4:02-cr-70031-1, 2008 WL 2906942 (W.D.Va. July 28, 2008; Aug. 8, 2008). [227]*227See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir.2009). 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

PER CURIAM:

Kirkwood Donnell Cabiness appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006), and its subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Cabiness, No. 4:02-cr-70031-1, 2008 WL 2906942 (W.D.Va. July 28, 2008; Aug. 8, 2008). [227]*227See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir.2009). 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.

United States v. Cabiness, 325 F. App'x 226 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

325 F. App'x 226 (United States v. Cabiness) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related