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)
10-6319•5:03-cr-00299-BO-1) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Jasper Tujuian Allen
10-6319Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 8, 2011
Filed: April 8, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 10-6319
(5:03-cr-00299-BO-1)
___________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JASPER TUJUIAN ALLEN,
Defendant – Appellant.
___________________
O R D E R
___________________
Upon consideration of appellant’s motion to amend opinion,
the Court grants the motion and amends the first sentence of the
text to read: “Jasper Tujuian Allen appeals the district
court’s order denying his motion to reopen his sentence.”
For the Court
/s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk
-- 1 of 3 --
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6319
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASPER TUJUIAN ALLEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:03-cr-00299-BO-1)
Submitted: June 29, 2010 Decided: July 16, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jasper Tujuian Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Jasper Tujuian Allen appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion to reopen 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. Allen, No. 5:03-cr-00299-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 2010).
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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.