US v. Tyrone Noble


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:06-cr-00748-JFA-9. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998471220] [10-6125]

Download PDF
US v. Tyrone Noble Doc. 0 Case: 10-6125 Document: 14 Date Filed: 11/23/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6125 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TYRONE NOBLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00748-JFA-9) Submitted: October 26, 2010 Decided: November 23, 2010 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Noble, Appellant Pro Se. Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-6125 Document: 14 Date Filed: 11/23/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Tyrone Noble appeals from the district court's orders denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582 (2006) motion for reduction of sentence and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties, and we affirm the denial of Noble's 3582 motion for the reasons stated by the district court. (D.S.C. Dec. United States v. Noble, No. 3:06-cr-00748-JFA-9 2, 2009). Regarding Noble's motion for reconsideration, although we affirm the district court's denial of the motion, we conclude that the district court had no jurisdiction to consider Noble's motion. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3530 (2010). 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 2

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?