United States v. Ford

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 18, 2009
• Docket: 08-8347
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8347

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MELVIN A. FORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-8348

NORMAN O’NEAL BROWN,

No. 08-8349

v. PAUL WINESTOCK, JR.,

No. 08-8350

MICHAEL STEVEN SMITH,

No. 08-8351

JEFFREY ANDREW REID,

No. 08-8352

2 WALTER TREVAUGHN SMITH,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:90-cr-00454-WMN-5; 1:90-cr-00454-WMN-4; 1:90-cr-00454-WMN-3; 1:90-cr-00454-WMN-8; 1:90-cr-00454-WMN-10; 1:90-cr-00454-WMN-2)

Submitted: February 24, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paresh S. Patel, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellants. Barbara Slaymaker Sale, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3 PER CURIAM:

Melvin Ford, Norman Brown, Paul Winestock, Jr.,

Michael Smith, Jeffrey Reid, and Walter Smith appeal the

district court’s order denying their motion for reduction of

sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. See United States v.

Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s order for the reasons stated by the court.

United States v. Brown, No. 1:90-cr-00454-WMN (D. Md. Oct. 6,

2008). We also deny appellant Winestock’s motions for

appointment of counsel and for judicial notice. 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