United States v. Crowder

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2009
• Docket: 08-7608
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7608

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICHARD DANIEL CROWDER, a/k/a Maleek Simmons,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00201-LHT-1)

Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 20, 2009

Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Gridley Pruden, TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Richard Daniel Crowder appeals the district court’s

orders denying his motion for a reduction of sentence filed

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and his motion for

reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and

find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

the motions. See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478

(4th Cir. 2004) (motion under § 3582(c) “is subject to the

discretion of the district court”); United States v. Legree, 205

F.3d 724, 727 (4th Cir. 2000). Thus, we affirm the district

court’s orders for the reasons stated there. See United States

v. Crowder, No. 1:05-cr-00201-LHT-1 (W.D.N.C. May 28 & Aug. 5,

2008). 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