United States v. Johnson

403 F. App'x 796
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Johnson. Read the opinion of the Court — 510 F.3d 521
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 2, 2010·No. No. 10-7307·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darrell P. Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to determine whether Amendment 709 is clarifying or substantive pursuant to USSG § 1B1.11(b)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a), (c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Unit[797]*797ed States v. Johnson, No. 2:01-cr-10079-jpj-1 (W.D.Va. Aug. 20, 2010). 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

United States v. Johnson, 403 F. App'x 796 (4th Cir. 2010).

403 F. App'x 796 (United States v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related