United States v. Dodson

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Dodson

63 F. App'x 755

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 28, 2003

Docket03-6439

StatusUnpublished

This text of 63 F. App'x 755 (United States v. Dodson) 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. Dodson, 63 F. App'x 755 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Carroll Eugene Dodson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. *756 § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Dodson, No. CR-94-106 (W.D.Va. Mar. 5, 2003). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Carroll Eugene Dodson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. *756 § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Dodson, No. CR-94-106 (W.D.Va. Mar. 5, 2003). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 F. App'x 755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dodson-ca4-2003.