United States v. McNeill

372 F. App'x 370
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. McNeill. Read the opinion of the Court — 598 F.3d 161
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 5, 2010·No. No. 09-8222·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Keith Darnell McNeill appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186-87 (4th Cir.2010). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order for the reasons stated there. See United States v. McNeill, No. 4:08-cr-00012-HCM-FBS-l (E.D.Va. Nov. 30, 2009). Further, we deny McNeill’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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. McNeill, 372 F. App'x 370 (4th Cir. 2010).

372 F. App'x 370 (United States v. McNeill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Munn
595 F.3d 183 (Fourth Circuit, 2010)