From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Lafond

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 22, 2013
518 F. App'x 214 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 12-7975

04-22-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAOUL LAFOND, Defendant - Appellant.

Raoul Lafond, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (6:96-cr-00212-WO-1) Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raoul Lafond, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Raoul Lafond appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Lafond, No. 6:96-cr-00212-WO-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 31, 2012). Additionally, we deny Lafond's motion for release pending appeal, for an en banc hearing, and for this court to assume jurisdiction over his motion pending in the district court. We 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


Summaries of

United States v. Lafond

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 22, 2013
518 F. App'x 214 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Lafond

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAOUL LAFOND, Defendant…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 22, 2013

Citations

518 F. App'x 214 (4th Cir. 2013)