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)
09-8189•United States of America v. James Rodney Smith, a/k/a Lump
09-8189Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 7, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8189
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES RODNEY SMITH, a/k/a Lump,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00065-H-6)
Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 7, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Rodney Smith, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
James Rodney Smith appeals from the district court’s
order denying his motions for clarification of the judgment,
clarification of his sentence, and to reduce his sentence. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Smith, No. 3:94-cr-00065-H-6 (E.D.N.C.
Aug. 20, 2009). 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.