United States v. Izard

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 3, 2009
Docket08-8389
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Izard (United States v. Izard) 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. Izard, (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8389

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARREN LEONARD IZARD, a/k/a Sld Dft 5:02CR37-4, a/k/a Twin, a/k/a Fat Boy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:02-cr-00037-RLV-4)

Submitted: April 22, 2009 Decided: June 3, 2009

Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darren Leonard Izard, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Theodore Martens, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Darren Leonard Izard appeals the district court’s

order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.

Izard, No. 5:02-cr-00037-RLV-4 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 15, 2008).

Further, as this court has recently issued its opinion in United

States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2009), we deny Izard’s

motion to place this appeal in abeyance for Hood as moot. 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

United States v. Hood
556 F.3d 226 (Fourth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Izard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-izard-ca4-2009.