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)
11-6797•United States of America v. Glenn Williams
11-6797Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 21, 2011
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6797
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GLENN WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:95-cr-00136-F-3)
Submitted: October 12, 2011 Decided: October 21, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Glenn Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Glenn Williams appeals the district court’s orders
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction
of sentence and denying his subsequent motions for
reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of
Williams’ § 3582(c)(2) motion for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Williams, No. 5:95-cr-00136-F-
3 (E.D.N.C. May 17, 2011). Because the district court lacked
the authority to consider Williams’ motions for reconsideration,
see United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3530 (2010), we affirm the district
court’s orders denying the motions. 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.