United States v. Scott

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Scott

222 F. App'x 294

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Scott. Read the opinion of the Court — 424 F.3d 431 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 29, 2007·No. 06-7780·Unpublished

Opinion

*295 PER CURIAM:

Anthony Duane Scott appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying with prejudice his motion for a reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Scott, No. 5:02-cr-00047-FPS (N.D.W.Va. Aug. 10, 2006). 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

*295 PER CURIAM:

Anthony Duane Scott appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying with prejudice his motion for a reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Scott, No. 5:02-cr-00047-FPS (N.D.W.Va. Aug. 10, 2006). 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. Scott, 222 F. App'x 294 (4th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

222 F. App'x 294 (United States v. Scott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.