Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    United States v. McIlwain, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Reon McIlwain's motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). McIlwain appealed the district court's ruling, but the Court of Appeals found no reversible error after reviewing the record. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. McIlwain, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Reon McIlwain's motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). McIlwain appealed the district court's ruling, but the Court of Appeals found no reversible error after reviewing the record. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-09-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6699

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Reon McIlwain's motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). McIlwain appealed the district court's ruling, but the Court of Appeals found no reversible error after reviewing the record. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    United States v. McIlwain, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Reon McIlwain's motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). McIlwain appealed the district court's ruling, but the Court of Appeals found no reversible error after reviewing the record. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-6699

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    REON DEVAR MCILWAIN,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
    Richard L.
    Voorhees, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00005-RLV-1)

    Submitted:

    August 26, 2010

    Decided:

    September 3, 2010

    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Reon Devar McIlwain, Appellant Pro Se.


    Amy Elizabeth Ray,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Reon Devar McIlwain appeals the district courts order
    denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction
    of sentence.
    error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.

    United States v. McIlwain, No. 5:01-cr-00005-

    RLV-1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 29, 2010).

    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

    You might also like