Narrative Opinion Summary
Kent Morrison's appeal against the district court's denial of his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) has been reviewed, and no reversible error was found. The appellate court affirms the district court's decision for the reasons provided in its ruling. Morrison's request for appointed counsel is denied. The court determines that oral argument is unnecessary as the existing materials sufficiently present the facts and legal issues. The decision is affirmed.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Appointed Counsel in Appellate Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied Morrison's request for appointed counsel, indicating that such appointment was unnecessary for the appeal.
Reasoning: Morrison's request for appointed counsel is denied.
Necessity of Oral Argument in Appellate Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court deemed oral argument unnecessary, concluding that the existing materials adequately presented the facts and legal issues involved.
Reasoning: The court determines that oral argument is unnecessary as the existing materials sufficiently present the facts and legal issues.
Sentence Reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviewed the district court's denial of the motion for sentence reduction and found no reversible error, affirming the lower court's decision.
Reasoning: Kent Morrison's appeal against the district court's denial of his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) has been reviewed, and no reversible error was found.