alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20023-BC

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

 v.

D-2 MAURICE EUGENE WATKINS,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY AS TO THE CONSPIRACY COUNT OF THE

SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA

AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on August 24, 2009, by United States Magistrate Judge

Charles E. Binder pursuant to the defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report on

August 25, 2009, recommending that this Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty. As of today’s

date, no party has filed any objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The

failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith

v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure

to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review

the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings

and conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 89] is ADOPTED.

Case 1:09-cr-20023-TLL-PTM ECF No. 113, PageID.381 Filed 09/18/09 Page 1 of 2
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s plea of guilty as to the conspiracy count of the

second superseding indictment is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 77] is taken

UNDER ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: September 18, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on September 18, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

Case 1:09-cr-20023-TLL-PTM ECF No. 113, PageID.382 Filed 09/18/09 Page 2 of 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1 -**  **6009**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ANTONIO STEWART , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. J. Frederick Motz , Senior District Judge. ( 1:04

- cr - 00377

- JFM

- 1; 1:10

- cv - 02039

- JFM )

Submitted : March 31, 2011 Decided: April 6, 2011

Before NIEMEYER , SHEDD, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
. Antonio Stewart, Appellant Pro Se
. John Francis Purcell, Jr. , Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Antonio Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealabi lity will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists wo uld find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural
gro unds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and c onclude that Stewart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Stewart’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ADIL SHAFI, an individual,

Counter-Plaintiff,

vs Case No: 09-10454

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

BRAINTECH, INC.,

Counter-Defendant,

AND

ROBOTIC VISION TECHNOLOGIES LLC, 

and FREDERICK WEIDINGER, an individual,

Plaintiff, Case No. 11-12909

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

vs

ADIL SHAFI,

Defendant.

/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND STAYING CASE

Noah S. Hurwitz and Berry Moorman PC, attorneys of record for Adil Shafi, filed

a Motion to Withdraw [doc 34]. Mr. Shafi was served with the motion and through

counsel, indicates that he is in agreement with the motion.

The motion is GRANTED. Noah S. Hurwitz is ordered to serve a copy of this

Order upon Mr. Shafi, by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested. A

Proof of Service must be filed with the Court.

Adil Shafi has until June 18, 2012, to have counsel appear on his behalf or notify

the Court that he wishes to proceed on his own without counsel. This matter is stayed

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 136 Filed 05/16/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 3165
until June 19, 2012 at 3:30 PM, at which time, the Court will hold a telephone status

conference.

IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: 5/16/2012

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 136 Filed 05/16/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 3166
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 A1 68 0 . DARRYL P. BUTLER v . TABATHA P. BUTLER.

I n J u ly 2009 , the trial c o u r t e ntere d a f inal j u d gment and dec ree o f

d iv orc e in the d iv o rc e ac tio n betw een D arryl P. Bu t ler a nd Tabatha P. B u t ler. I n A pril
2024, Darryl B u tler f

iled a mo tio n to set asid e t he d iv o rc e d ec ree p u rsu a nt to OCGA
§ 9

- 1 1- 6 0 (d ). The trial c o u rt d enied the mo tio n o n A p ril 30, 2024, and Darryl B u tler

f i l e d a n o tic e o f ap p eal seek ing to ap p eal t hat o rd er o n J u ne 1 1, 2024. W e lac k j u risd ic tio n f

o r three reaso ns. First, a no tic e o f ap p eal mu st be f iled w ithin 30 d ays o f entry of the j u d gment

o r t rial c o u rt o r d er so u ght to be ap p ealed

. OCGA § 5- 6- 38 (a). The pro p er and timely

f iling o f a no tic e o f ap p eal is an abso lu te requ irement to c o nf er j u risd ic tio n o n this

Co u rt. Redfo rd v

. Sta te , 357 Ga. A p p

. 247 , 250 (850 SE2d 447 ) (2020). Darryl B u tler’ s

no tic e o f ap p eal is u ntimely, a s it w a s f iled 42 d ays af

ter entry of the o rd er o n ap p eal.

Sec o nd
, ap p ea l s f

r o m “ j u d gments o r o rd ers in div o rc e, alimo ny, and o ther

d o mestic relatio ns c ases” m u st be mad e by a p p l i c a t i o n fo r d isc retio nary ap p eal.

OCGA § 5- 6

- 35 (a) (2). Third
, the d en i a l of a mo tio n to set asid e a f inal j u d gment

u nd er OCGA § 9- 11

- 6 0 (d ) also mu st be mad e by ap p lic atio n f or d isc retio nary ap p eal.

See OCGA § 5- 6

- 35 (a) (8); Ji m E lli s A tla n ta , In c. v

. A da ms o n , 283 Ga. A p p

. 1 1 6 , 1 1 6 (6 40 SE2d 6 88) (2006 ). “ Co mp lianc e w ith the d isc retio nary a p p eals p ro c ed u re is j u risd ic tio nal. ” Ha i

r Res to ra ti

on S peci a l i s ts v. S ta t e o f G e o rgi a , 36 0 Ga. A p p

. 9 01 , 9 03 (86 2 SE2d 56 4) (2021 ) (p u nc tu atio n omitted ); S mo a k v

. D ept. of H u m an R e sou r c e s , 2 2 1

Ga. A p p

. 257 , 257 (47 1 SE2d 6 0) (1 99 6 ). Thu s , D arryl B u tler’ s f ailu re to f o l l o w the

d i s cretio nary ap p eals p ro c ed ure also d ep riv es u s of ju risd ic tio n o v e r this d i r e ct a p p e a l

. July 03, 2024Fo r these reaso ns, this ap p eal is hereby D I SM ISSED

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia
C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t ify t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e

x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

. W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 07/03/2024
[No. 34224.

Department One.

April 4, 1957.]

#### The State of Washington, *on the Relation of David B. Perry, Plaintiff,*v. Thomas G. Jordan, *Judge of the Superior Court for Asotin County, Respondent.*
      *1*

*Leslie T. McCarthy*and T. H. *Little,*for relator.

*Eli Rapaich*and C. *Orno Shoemaker,*for respondent.

Reported in 309 P. (2d) 383.

Per Curiam.

The relator seeks a reversal of an order admitting a will to probate. There has been no will contest, but relator sought to make an application for the probate of a will under RCW 11.20.020 [cf. Rem. Rev. Stat., § 1380] an adversary proceeding.' The trial court refused to permit him to do so.

We held in *Gordon v. Seattle-First Nat. Bank,*49 Wn. (2d) 728, 736, 306 P. (2d) 739, that it could be done under certain circumstances, saying:

> “Nevertheless, an interested party cannot force such a hearing into an adversary proceeding merely by filing objections to the probate of the will. The circumstances must be such that either there is a question of the court’s jurisdiction to admit the will to probate, or certain issues are pre*94sented which the court could, or should, determine at the original hearing. As to the first, the court is bound to hear the controversy. As to the second, it is a matter within the sound discretion of the court.”

No question of jurisdiction is presented here, and the sole issue is whether the court abused its discretion in refusing to hear the controversy.

We find no unusual circumstances in this case and no abuse of discretion. The order admitting the will to probate and appointing the alternate executrix named therein is affirmed, without prejudice to a contest of the will by the relator.
|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,  and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      at the dates and for the periodsindicated. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      August 19, 2010 | /s/      Qingqing Wu               |   |
|----------------------------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                       | Qingqing      Wu                   |   |
|                       | Chief      Executive Officer       |   |
|                       | (Principal      Executive Officer) |   |

----
Case 4:18-mc-00003 Document 2 Filed 02/22/18 Page 1 of 8
Case 4:18-mc-00003 Document 2 Filed 02/22/18 Page 2 of 8
Case 4:18-mc-00003 Document 2 Filed 02/22/18 Page 3 of 8
Case 4:18-mc-00003 Document 2 Filed 02/22/18 Page 4 of 8
Case 4:18-mc-00003 Document 2 Filed 02/22/18 Page 5 of 8
Case 4:18-mc-00003 Document 2 Filed 02/22/18 Page 6 of 8
Case 4:18-mc-00003 Document 2 Filed 02/22/18 Page 7 of 8
Case 4:18-mc-00003 Document 2 Filed 02/22/18 Page 8 of 8
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

I. DEAN FULTON, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 111 EM 2016 

 

 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 1st day of September, 2016, the Motion for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal in Excess of 9,000 Words is DENIED. Petitioner is DIRECTED

to file a compliant Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 30 days.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

August 27, 2008

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge



### JEREMY KUNZ, ] Appeals from the United

Plaintiff-Appellee, ] States District Court of

Cross-Appellant ] the Northern District of

] Illinois, Eastern Division

Nos. 06-3828 & 06-3827 v. ]

] No. 01 C 1753

RICHARD DEFELICE, Officer, ]

Defendant-Appellant, ] James B. Zagel,

Cross-Appellee ] Judge.

]

and ]

]

CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., ]

Defendants, ]

Cross-Appellees. ]

Upon consideration of the MOTION TO CORRECT PUBLISHED OPINION

, filed

on August 25, 2008, by counsel for the City of Chicago,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to correct the opinion is GRANTED

. On page 2 of

the slip opinion, the sentence beginning on line 12 shall be corrected as follows: “The City

and DeFelice appeal from those judgments” is replaced with “DeFelice appeals from those

judgments”. On lines 9 and 10 of page 23 of the slip opinion, “June 22, 2006 opinion” shall

be replaced with “September 16, 2005 order”. On line 16 of page 23 of the slip opinion,

“June 22, 2006 opinion” shall be replaced with “September 16, 2005 order”.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20006-04-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

PERNELL THOMAS,

Defendant.

__________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY AS TO COUNT TWO, AND TAKING THE RULE

11 PLEA AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on January 11, 2010, by United States Magistrate Judge

Charles E. Binder pursuant to the Defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report on

January 12, 2010, recommending acceptance of Defendant’s guilty plea. Either party may serve and

file written objections “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” of the report and

recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court will make a “de novo determination

of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” Id. Where, as here, neither party

objects to the report, the district court is not obligated to independently review the record. Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–52 (1985). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 187] is ADOPTED.

1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB Doc # 200 Filed 02/04/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 741
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s guilty plea as to count two is ACCEPTED, and

the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 185] is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: February 4, 2010

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on February 4, 2010.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB Doc # 200 Filed 02/04/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 742
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20006-09-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

DANYELL SOMMER,

Defendant.

__________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY AS TO COUNT TWO, AND TAKING THE RULE

11 PLEA AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on September 21, 2009, by United States Magistrate Judge

Charles E. Binder pursuant to the defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report on

September 22, 2009, recommending that this Court accept the defendant’s guilty plea. As of today’s

date, no party has filed any objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The

failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith

v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure

to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review

the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The Court, however, agrees with the findings

and conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 118] is ADOPTED.

Case 1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB ECF No. 140, PageID.411 Filed 11/04/09 Page 1 of 2
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s guilty plea as to count two is ACCEPTED, and

the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 102] is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: November 4, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on November 4, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

Case 1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB ECF No. 140, PageID.412 Filed 11/04/09 Page 2 of 2
#### Antonio MELENDEZ, Relator, v. Honorable Homer SALINAS, Judge, 92nd Judicial District Court, Hidalgo County, Texas, Respondent.

No. 13-94-394-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi.

Sept. 9, 1994.

Ordered Published Oct. 13, 1994.

*715Nereda Morales-Martinez, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Edinburg, for intervenor.

Jerome Wesevich, Edinburg, Santos Maldonado, Jr., Phan’, for relator.

Homer Salinas, Edinburg, for respondent.

Before SEERDEN, C.J., and GILBERTO HINOJOSA and YÁÑEZ, JJ.

OPINION

YÁÑEZ, Justice.

Antonio Melendez, relator, is an indigent defendant in a pending criminal case in the 92nd District Court presided over by respondent, the Honorable Homer Salinas. Melendez seeks a writ of mandamus directing Judge Salinas to conduct a pre-trial hearing on a motion to replace appointed counsel. We will conditionally grant the writ.

Melendez has been incarcerated in the Hi-dalgo County Jail since Apiri 4, 1993, on a charge of attempted murder. The trial court appointed the Honorable Santos Maldonado to represent Melendez on June 14,1993. On August 10, 1994, the Honorable Jerome Wesevich, an attorney with Texas Rural Legal Aid, filed a motion in respondent’s court, on Melendez’s behalf, seeking to replace appointed counsel Maldonado. Melendez asserted that since being appointed, Maldonado failed to communicate with him, except for three brief incidents totalling twenty minutes, and failed to properly investigate his case or provide adequate representation. The motion came before Judge Salinas on August 15, with Maldonado, Melendez, and Wesevich present. Judge Salinas refused to consider the merits of the motion or to recognize Wesevich’s authority to argue the motion.

When a defendant voices a seemingly substantial complaint about counsel, the trial judge should make a thorough inquiry into the reasons for the defendant’s dissatisfaction. *Wilson v. Mintzes,*733 F.2d 424, 428 (6th Cir.1984); *United States v. Young,*482 F.2d 993, 995 (5th Cir.1973). Such an inquiry is necessary if the court is to determine whether good cause for substitution of counsel exists. *Wilson,*733 F.2d at 428. Fading to conduct such an inquiry is normally reversible error. *Young,*482 F.2d at 995.

Given the length of Melendez’s incarceration and Melendez’s allegations regarding the conduct of his appointed counsel, we find that Melendez has raised a substantial complaint about his appointed counsel’s representation and that Judge Salinas should have conducted a hearing into the merits of Melendez’s complaints.

We further find from the documents submitted to this Court and from the record of the limited proceedings held before Judge Salinas on August 15 that the Honorable Jerome Wesevich has the authority to appear on Melendez’s behalf.

Accordingly, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and direct Judge Salinas to conduct a hearing on Melendez’s motion. The writ, however, will not issue unless the respondent fails to comply with this opinion. If Judge Salinas fails to comply with this opinion, Melendez may petition this Court for issuance of the writ.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Anthony V. BUDGETTS, Appellant. Anthony Vincent BUDGETTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 48377, WD 50245.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 22, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 3, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 21, 1995.

Dennis J.C. Owens, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and ULRICH and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

In this jury tried case, Anthony Vincent Budgetts was convicted of murder in the first degree, § 565.020 RSMo 1994, and armed criminal action, § 571.015.1 RSMo 1994. Budgetts was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole on the murder charge, and life imprisonment on the armed criminal action count, the two sentences to run concurrently. He appeals the judgment and sentence. Budgetts also appeals from denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The appeals were consolidated pursuant to Rule 29.15(i). However, Budgetts has abandoned his appeal from denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief by failing to brief any errors pertaining to same.

With respect to Budgetts’ direct appeal, no error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7053

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. ANTHONY JOHN MALDONADO, a/k/a Herminio Parrilla, a/k/a Spanish, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:97-cr-00220-NCT-1)

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 28, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John David Bryson, WYATT, EARLY, HARRIS & WHEELER, LLP, High Point, North Carolina, for Appellant. L. Patrick Auld, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony John Maldonado appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Goines , 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (motion under § 3582(c) “is subject to the discretion of the district court”); United States v. Legree , 205 F.3d 724, 727 (4th Cir. 2000). Thus, we affirm the district
court’s order for the reasons stated there. See United
States v. Maldonado , No. 1:97-cr-00220-NCT-1 (M.D.N.C. May 15, 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