United States v. Steglich

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Steglich

406 F. App'x 716

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 29, 2010·No. No. 10-7419·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lance Bishop Steglich appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Steglich, No. 3:00-cr-00063-jpj-9, 2010 WL 3810631 (W.D.Va. Sept. 28, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented [717]*717in 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Lance Bishop Steglich appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Steglich, No. 3:00-cr-00063-jpj-9, 2010 WL 3810631 (W.D.Va. Sept. 28, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented [717]*717in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

United States v. Steglich, 406 F. App'x 716 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

406 F. App'x 716 (United States v. Steglich) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related