US v. William Barrow


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [1000097620-2] Originating case number: 2:11-cr-00029-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000141592]. Mailed to: William Barrow. [17-6670]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6670 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/22/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6670 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM DONNELL BARROW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (2:11-cr-00029-D-1) Submitted: August 17, 2017 Decided: August 22, 2017 Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Donnell Barrow, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Jason Cameron, Denise Walker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6670 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/22/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: William Donnell Barrow appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Barrow, No. 2:11-cr-00029-D-1 (E.D.N.C. May 12, 2017). We deny Barrow’s motion for a transcript at government expense and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * The district court’s order also denies Barrow’s motion for review of his case for harmless and plain error. Barrow confines his appeal to the district court’s denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion. 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?