United States v. Mitchell

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Mitchell

471 F. App'x 214

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 2012

DocketNo. 12-6026

StatusPublished

This text of 471 F. App'x 214 (United States v. Mitchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Mitchell, 471 F. App'x 214 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Sidney Kenneth Mitchell appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Mitchell, No. 3:06-cr-00068-JPB-1, 2011 WL 6322828 (N.D.W.Va. Dec. 16, 2011). 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

PER CURIAM:

Sidney Kenneth Mitchell appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Mitchell, No. 3:06-cr-00068-JPB-1, 2011 WL 6322828 (N.D.W.Va. Dec. 16, 2011). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 F. App'x 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mitchell-ca4-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack