Narrative Opinion Summary
Kalvin Marshall's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) has been affirmed by a PER CURIAM opinion. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, thereby upholding the district court's decision for the reasons provided in its ruling. The case, United States v. Marshall, No. 3:02-cr-00225-HEH-2, was decided in the Eastern District of Virginia on September 8, 2010. The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the relevant facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the existing documentation.
Legal Issues Addressed
Necessity of Oral Argument in Appellate Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the relevant facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the existing documentation.
Reasoning: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the relevant facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the existing documentation.
Review of District Court Decisions by Appellate Courtssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court conducted a review of the district court's decision and found no reversible error, thereby affirming the lower court's ruling.
Reasoning: The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, thereby upholding the district court's decision for the reasons provided in its ruling.
Sentence Reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviewed and upheld the district court's denial of a motion for sentence reduction, finding no reversible error.
Reasoning: Kalvin Marshall's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) has been affirmed by a PER CURIAM opinion.