United States v. Padgett

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Padgett. Read the opinion of the Court — 422 F. App'x 287
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 1, 2009·No. 09-6893·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6893

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARRELL L. PADGETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:91-cr-00166-1)

Submitted: November 10, 2009 Decided: December 1, 2009

Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell L. Padgett, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Darrell L. Padgett appeals the district court’s order

granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for

the reasons stated by the district court. Further, we note that

any error resulting from the district court’s failure to

apportion the amended sentence among the counts of conviction

was harmless. See United States v. Chase, 296 F.3d 247, 249-50

(4th Cir. 2002). We deny Padgett’s motion to appoint 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.

DISMISSED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

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

Related

United States v. Jermaine Lavonne Chase
296 F.3d 247 (Fourth Circuit, 2002)