Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

U.S. v. LIGHTNER, 359 Fed.Appx. 398 (4th Cir. 2009)

United States, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David FitzgeraldLIGHTNER, Defendant-Appellant., 359 F. App'x 398 (4th Cir. 2009)

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2009-12-31
Topic
general

U.S. v. LIGHTNER, 359 Fed.Appx. 398 (4th Cir. 2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David FitzgeraldLIGHTNER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-7900.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: December 17, 2009. Decided: December 31, 2009. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed U.S. v. LIGHTNER, 359 Fed.Appx. 398 (4th Cir. 2009). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

U.S. v. LIGHTNER,359 Fed.Appx. 398(4th Cir. 2009)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Fitzgerald
LIGHTNER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-7900.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 17, 2009.
Decided: December 31, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:93-cr-00133-FDW-2).
David Fitzgerald Lightner, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Fitzgerald Lightner appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion and his subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.United Statesv. Lightner, No. 3:93-cr-00133-FDW-2 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 28, 2009; Oct. 7, 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.
  1. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩