Narrative Opinion Summary
Gregory Fisher Butler, Jr. appeals the denial of his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) by the district court. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its order. The case citation is United States v. Butler, No. 3:00-cr-00169-FDW-4 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 25, 2012). The court dispensed with oral argument, determining that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials, and that further argument would not assist in the decision-making process. The ruling is affirmed. Unpublished opinions do not constitute binding precedent in this circuit.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dispensing with Oral Argumentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court decided that oral argument was unnecessary because the written materials sufficiently presented the facts and legal issues, and further argument would not aid the decision-making process.
Reasoning: The court dispensed with oral argument, determining that the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials, and that further argument would not assist in the decision-making process.
Non-Binding Nature of Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The opinion in this case is unpublished and does not serve as binding precedent within the circuit, highlighting the limited precedential value of such decisions.
Reasoning: Unpublished opinions do not constitute binding precedent in this circuit.
Review of Sentence Reduction Denial under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for sentence reduction, finding no reversible error in the lower court's decision.
Reasoning: Gregory Fisher Butler, Jr. appeals the denial of his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) by the district court. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its order.