United States v. Morrison

324 F. App'x 209
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. No. 08-8307·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 8582(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, 324 F. App'x 209 (4th Cir. 2009).

324 F. App'x 209 (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)