Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-08046/USCOURTS-ca4-06-08046-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Joseph Anthony Walker
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-8046

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH ANTHONY WALKER, a/k/a Joseph Walker,

a/k/a Jody Laboard, a/k/a Derrick Laboard,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(2:02-cr-00522-DCN)

Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: December 3, 2007

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Wells Dickson, Jr., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-8046 Doc: 43 Filed: 12/03/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Anthony Walker appealed from the denial of his

motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c) (West

2000 & Supp. 2007) pursuant to Amendment 599. This case was

previously remanded for a determination of timeliness of the appeal

in the ten-day appeal period. On November 21, 2006, the district

court determined that the appeal was timely noted and returned the

case to the court. On July 2, 2007, judgment was entered affirming

the district court’s order. See United States v. Walker, No. 06-

6772 (4th Cir. July 2, 2007) (unpublished). The mandate issued on

August 24, 2007.

On December 1, 2006, Walker, proceeding pro se, noted

another appeal of the order denying § 3582(c) relief, which is the

notice of appeal related to the subject case. Having reviewed the

record and the Anders brief, the court finds that this appeal is

duplicitous and dismisses the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 06-8046 Doc: 43 Filed: 12/03/2007 Pg: 2 of 2