United States v. Randolph

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Randolph

478 F. App'x 16

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 11, 2012·No. No. 12-6800·Published

Opinion

[17] Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Albert Randolph appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (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. Randolph, No. 3:01-cr-00304-JRS-11 (E.D.Va. Apr. 13, 2012). 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

[17] Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Albert Randolph appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (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. Randolph, No. 3:01-cr-00304-JRS-11 (E.D.Va. Apr. 13, 2012). 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. Randolph, 478 F. App'x 16 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

478 F. App'x 16 (United States v. Randolph) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related