United States v. Lee

385 F. App'x 345
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Lee. Read the opinion of the Court — 321 F. App'x 298
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 29, 2010·No. No. 10-6069·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Antrantrino Lee appeals the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Lee’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Lee, No. 5:01-cr-00221-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 10, 2009). 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. Lee, 385 F. App'x 345 (4th Cir. 2010).

385 F. App'x 345 (United States v. Lee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related