United States v. Mills

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Mills. Read the opinion of the Court — 224 F. App'x 232
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 7, 2009·No. 09-6833·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6833

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TYRON MARQUETTE MILLS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (4:06-cr-00010-BR-1)

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 7, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyron Marquette Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Michael Gordon James, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Tyron Marquette Mills appeals the district court’s

order denying 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.

Mills, No. 4:06-cr-00010-BR-1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 21, 2009). We deny

Mills’s motion for 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. Mills, (4th Cir. 2009).

United States v. Mills (United States v. Mills) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related