United States v. Slate

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Slate

569 F. App'x 164

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 29, 2014

DocketNo. 14-6273

StatusPublished

This text of 569 F. App'x 164 (United States v. Slate) 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. Slate, 569 F. App'x 164 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

William Lamont Slate appeals a district court order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) (2012) motion and his petition for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons of the district court. United States v. Slate, No. 4:97-cr-00041-RBS-2 (E.D.Va. Feb. 5, 2014). We deny Slate’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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

PER CURIAM:

William Lamont Slate appeals a district court order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) (2012) motion and his petition for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons of the district court. United States v. Slate, No. 4:97-cr-00041-RBS-2 (E.D.Va. Feb. 5, 2014). We deny Slate’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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)

569 F. App'x 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-slate-ca4-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack