United States v. Connor
This text of United States v. Connor (United States v. Connor) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7574
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
THOMAS NELSON CONNOR,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00008-RLV-9)
Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Federal Public Defender, Charlotte, North Carolina, Matthew Segal, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Thomas Nelson Connor appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we deny Connor’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Connor, No. 5:01-cr-00008-RLV-9 (W.D.N.C. July 30, 2008). See
United States v. Hood, ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 416979 (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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Connor, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-connor-ca4-2009.