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)
11-7225•United States of America v. Harold Dwight Wooten
11-7225Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 8, 2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7225
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HAROLD DWIGHT WOOTEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:98-cr-00094-JAB-1)
Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 8, 2012
Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Grace, Sr., Christopher R. Clifton, GRACE, TISDALE &
CLIFTON, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Robert M. Hamilton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Harold Dwight Wooten appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have
reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion by the
district court. See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478
(4th Cir. 2004) (providing review standard). Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United
States v. Wooten, No. 1:98-cr-00094-JAB-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 30,
2011). 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.