Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    United States v. Durrell Toppin, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Durrell Toppin appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the record. Per curiam, the panel decided oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately briefed. The Fourth Circuit thus affirmed the district court's denial of Toppin's motion for relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Durrell Toppin, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views2 pages
    Durrell Toppin appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the record. Per curiam, the panel decided oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately briefed. The Fourth Circuit thus affirmed the district court's denial of Toppin's motion for relief.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-06-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-6237

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Durrell Toppin appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the record. Per curiam, the panel decided oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately briefed. The Fourth Circuit thus affirmed the district court's denial of Toppin's motion for relief.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Durrell Toppin, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Durrell Toppin appealed the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the record. Per curiam, the panel decided oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately briefed. The Fourth Circuit thus affirmed the district court's denial of Toppin's motion for relief.

    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. 13-6237

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DURRELL TOPPIN, a/k/a Smiles,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (1:07-cr-00013-JCC-3)

    Submitted:

    May 30, 2013

    Decided:

    June 5, 2013

    Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Durrell Toppin, Appellant Pro Se.


    Lawrence Joseph Leiser,
    Michael Edward Rich, Assistant United States Attorneys, Jessica
    R. Hertz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Durrell
    construing

    his

    Toppin

    motion

    appeals

    as

    seeking

    the

    district

    relief

    3582(c)(2) (2006) and denying the motion.


    record and find no reversible error.

    under

    courts
    18

    order

    U.S.C.

    We have reviewed the


    Accordingly, we affirm

    for the reasons stated by the district court.

    United States v.

    Toppin, No. 1:07-cr-00013-JCC-3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2013).


    dispense

    with

    contentions

    are

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like