Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Bernard GREEN, a/k/a Aaron O. Smith, Jr., a/k/a Calvin M. Green, a/k/a Calvin D. Smith, a/k/a Calvin Marvin Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Green, a/k/a Budda Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Smith, a/k/a William Mingo Johnson, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-01
Citations: 301 F. App'x 201
Docket Number: No. 08-7738
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Bernard GREEN, a/k/a Aaron O. Smith, Jr., a/k/a Calvin M. Green, a/k/a Calvin D. Smith, a/k/a Calvin Marvin Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Green, a/k/a Budda Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Smith, a/k/a William Mingo Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 201–201

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Bernard GREEN, a/k/a Aaron O. Smith, Jr., a/k/a Calvin M. Green, a/k/a Calvin D. Smith, a/k/a Calvin Marvin Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Green, a/k/a Budda Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Smith, a/k/a William Mingo Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-7738.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 12, 2008.
Decided: Dec. 1, 2008.
Calvin Bernard Green, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Bernard Green appeals the district court's orders denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006), and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Green, No. 7:99-cr-00032-jct-l (W.D.Va. Apr. 29, 2008 & Aug. 19, 2008). 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.