United States of America v. Melvin A. Ford

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8347
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MELVIN A. FORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-8348
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NORMAN O’NEAL BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-8349
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.

-- 1 of 4 --

PAUL WINESTOCK, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-8350
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL STEVEN SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-8351
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY ANDREW REID,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-8352
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
2

-- 2 of 4 --

WALTER TREVAUGHN SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior
District Judge. (1:90-cr-00454-WMN-5; 1:90-cr-00454-WMN-4;
1:90-cr-00454-WMN-3; 1:90-cr-00454-WMN-8; 1:90-cr-00454-WMN-10;
1:90-cr-00454-WMN-2)
Submitted: February 24, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paresh S. Patel, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellants. Barbara Slaymaker Sale,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Ford, Norman Brown, Paul Winestock, Jr.,
Michael Smith, Jeffrey Reid, and Walter Smith appeal the
district court’s order denying their motion for reduction of
sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. See United States v.
Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s order for the reasons stated by the court.
United States v. Brown, No. 1:90-cr-00454-WMN (D. Md. Oct. 6,
2008). We also deny appellant Winestock’s motions for
appointment of counsel and for judicial notice. 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

-- 4 of 4 --