United States v. Montgomery

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Montgomery

343 F. App'x 885

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Montgomery. Read the opinion of the Court — 389 F. App'x 321 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 27, 2009·No. No. 09-6158·Published

Opinion

[886]*886Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Montgomery appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction 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. United States v. Montgomery, No. 3:03-cr-00216-JRS-2 (E.D.Va. Jan. 14, 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

[886]*886Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Montgomery appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction 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. United States v. Montgomery, No. 3:03-cr-00216-JRS-2 (E.D.Va. Jan. 14, 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.

United States v. Montgomery, 343 F. App'x 885 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

343 F. App'x 885 (United States v. Montgomery) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related