United States v. Oden

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Oden

620 F. App'x 181

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 20, 2015

DocketNo. 15-7006

StatusPublished

This text of 620 F. App'x 181 (United States v. Oden) 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. Oden, 620 F. App'x 181 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

[182]*182Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher William Oden appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for a sentence reduction and for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Oden, No. 3:11-cr-00056-GMG-RWT-1 (N.D.W.Va., Mar. 30, 2015; May 26, 2015). We deny Oden’s motion for resentencing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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

[182]*182Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher William Oden appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for a sentence reduction and for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Oden, No. 3:11-cr-00056-GMG-RWT-1 (N.D.W.Va., Mar. 30, 2015; May 26, 2015). We deny Oden’s motion for resentencing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

620 F. App'x 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-oden-ca4-2015.