Case ID: f-appx_82/html/0304-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William M. BRYSON, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-7166.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2003.
    Decided Dec. 4, 2003.
    
      William M. Bryson, Jr., Appellant pro se.
    Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

William M. Bryson, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for review of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2000) and for modification of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Bryson, No. CR-01-240 (D.S.C. July 18, 2003). In his informal brief, Bryson asserts several claims that were not raised in the district court. We decline to address these claims. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993) (declining to consider claims raised for first time on appeal, absent exceptional circumstances). 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