United States v. Messick

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Messick

353 F. App'x 831

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 24, 2009·No. No. 09-7426·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nathan Messick appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Messick, No. 3:06-cr-00058-JBP-1 (N.D.W.Va. July 21, 2009). We also deny Messick’s motion for transcripts at government expense and 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nathan Messick appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Messick, No. 3:06-cr-00058-JBP-1 (N.D.W.Va. July 21, 2009). We also deny Messick’s motion for transcripts at government expense and 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.

United States v. Messick, 353 F. App'x 831 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

353 F. App'x 831 (United States v. Messick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related