The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-6959•United States of America v. Michael Walford Clarke, a/k/a “G”
00-6959Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 29, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6959
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL WALFORD CLARKE, a/k/a “G”,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CR-92-75)
Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 29, 2000
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Walford Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael W. Clarke appeals from the district court’s order
denying his motion for modification of his sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(1)(B) (West 1985 & Supp. 2000). We have re-
viewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See United States v. Clarke, No. CR-92-75 (M.D.N.C. June
26, 2000). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.