Case ID: f-appx_332/html/0815-01.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. Steven Gregory RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-6741.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 4, 2009.
    Decided: Oct. 1, 2009.
    Steven Gregory Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Steven Gregory Richardson appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Richardson’s notice of appeal was untimely filed. Although the document Richardson captioned as a “motion of Appeal” was untimely, he earlier filed a “request for certifícate of appealability” within the ten-day appeal period. Because we construe Richardson’s “request” to be a timely notice of appeal, see Fed. RApp. P. 3, we deny the Government’s motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United, States v. Richardson, No. 5:05-cr-00298-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 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.