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)
08-8494•United States of America v. Ernest M. Booker, a/k/a E, a/k/a Shawndell Campbell
08-8494Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 9, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8494
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ERNEST M. BOOKER, a/k/a E, a/k/a Shawndell Campbell,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:03-cr-00394-JRS-3)
Submitted: June 4, 2009 Decided: June 9, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Amy Leigh Austin, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Roderick Charles Young,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Ernest M. Booker appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction
of sentence. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
appeal is moot because Booker is no longer in custody.
See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(b)(2)(C), p.s.
(2009); Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 285-86 (4th Cir. 2007)
(setting forth the principles of appellate mootness).
We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot and deny Booker’s motion
to appoint counsel. 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.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.