United States v. Morrison

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Morrison. Read the opinion of the Court — 333 F. App'x 741
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 1, 2009·No. 08-8307·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8307

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY T. MORRISON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-00080-RLW-2)

Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 1, 2009

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amy Leigh Austin, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Anthony T. Morrison appeals the district court’s order

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See United

States v. Lindsey, 556 F.3d 238, 244-46 (4th Cir. 2009); United

States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232-33 (4th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. United States v. Morrison, No. 3:05-cr-00080-RLW-2 (E.D.

Va. Oct. 10, 2008). We deny Morrison’s motion for appointment

of counsel 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

United States v. Morrison, (4th Cir. 2009).

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

Related

United States v. Lindsey
556 F.3d 238 (Fourth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Hood
556 F.3d 226 (Fourth Circuit, 2009)