United States v. Stacey

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Stacey

332 F. App'x 858

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 16, 2009·No. No. 09-7267·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Stacey appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). 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. Stacey, No. 3:03-cr-00134-GCM-4 (W.D.N.C. June 29, 2009). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Stacey appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). 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. Stacey, No. 3:03-cr-00134-GCM-4 (W.D.N.C. June 29, 2009). 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. Stacey, 332 F. App'x 858 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

332 F. App'x 858 (United States v. Stacey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related