Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. James William Keller, 25 F.3d 1042, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes an appeal from James William Keller of a district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal had no merit based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its December 21, 1993 decision. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-05-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 25 F.3d 1042 Docket: 94-6101

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes an appeal from James William Keller of a district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal had no merit based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its December 21, 1993 decision. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    8 views2 pages

    United States v. James William Keller, 25 F.3d 1042, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes an appeal from James William Keller of a district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the appeal had no merit based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its December 21, 1993 decision. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    25 F.

    3d 1042
    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished
    dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law
    of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the
    Fourth Circuit.

    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff Appellee,


    v.
    James William KELLER, Defendant Appellant.
    No. 94-6101.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: April 21, 1994.
    Decided: May 19, 1994.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
    West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, District Judge. (CR-92-773)
    James William Keller, Appellant Pro Se.
    Sharon Mullen Frazier, Office of the United States Attorney, Huntington,
    West Virginia, for Appellee.
    S.D.W.Va.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. Sec.
    3582(c)(2) (1988) motion. Our review of the record and the district court's
    opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on
    the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Keller, No. CR-92-77-3
    (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 21, 1993). 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