Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    United States v. Derwin Coles, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Derwin Coles appealed a district court order that granted in part and denied in part his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). An appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Derwin Coles, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    Derwin Coles appealed a district court order that granted in part and denied in part his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). An appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-08-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-6654

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Derwin Coles appealed a district court order that granted in part and denied in part his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). An appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    11 views2 pages

    United States v. Derwin Coles, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Derwin Coles appealed a district court order that granted in part and denied in part his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). An appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the materials provided. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-6654

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DERWIN COLES, a/k/a Woods,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
    John T. Copenhaver,
    Jr., District Judge. (2:01-cr-00254-3)

    Submitted:

    April 15, 2011

    Decided:

    August 5, 2011

    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Derwin Coles, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Assistant United


    States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Derwin

    Coles

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    granting in part and denying in part his motion filed pursuant


    to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006).
    and find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed the record

    Accordingly, we affirm for the

    reasons stated by the district court.

    United States v. Coles,

    No. 2:01-cr-00254-3 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 19, 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

    You might also like