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)
09-8212•United States of America v. Mary King, a/k/a Kitty
09-8212Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 3, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8212
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARY KING, a/k/a Kitty,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:04-cr-00259-HEH-4)
Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 3, 2010
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary King, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Mary King appeals the district court’s order finding
her ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). In her informal appellate brief, King
failed to challenge the district court’s reason supporting the
denial of relief. King therefore has forfeited appellate review
of the eligibility issue. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court
will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal
brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm. 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.