United States v. Swift

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Swift

62 F. App'x 547

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 15, 2003·No. No. 01-6925·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James Cornell Swift appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for modification of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). 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. Swift, No. CR-99-13 (E.D.Va. May 10, 2001). 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

PER CURIAM.

James Cornell Swift appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for modification of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). 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. Swift, No. CR-99-13 (E.D.Va. May 10, 2001). 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. Swift, 62 F. App'x 547 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

62 F. App'x 547 (United States v. Swift) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related