US v. Ronald Payne
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONALD PAYNE, a/k/a Raheem, Defendant Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONALD PAYNE, a/k/a Raheem, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:01-cr-00506-JFA-1)
September 29, 2009
October 22, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Payne, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: In Case No. 09-6353, Ronald Payne appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and denying his motion to compel the Government to move for a sentence reduction pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find no
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated United States v. Payne, No. 3:01-cr-
by the district court.
00506-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Feb. 17, 2009). In Case No. 09-7099, which has been consolidated with No. 09-6353, Payne appeals the district court's docket order denying his motion to compel the court reporter to produce a transcript of his hearing prior to June 1, 2009. district court's denial of the motion to compel. entitled to dictate the timing for the We uphold the Payne was not of the
transcript and has failed to show that he was prejudiced by any delay in preparation. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders in both cases. 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?