You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United States v. Butler

Citation: 487 F. App'x 797Docket: No. 12-7095

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; November 5, 2012; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Wilbur Butler appeals the denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) by the district court. The appellate review of the record reveals no reversible error, leading to the affirmation of the district court's decision. The case referenced is United States v. Butler, No. 7:02-cr-00093-F-1 (E.D.N.C. June 13, 2012). The court opted not to hold oral argument, determining that the facts and legal arguments were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials, and that further argument would not assist in the decision-making process. The ruling is affirmed. Unpublished opinions, like this one, do not serve as binding precedent in the circuit.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Review of Sentencing Modification Denial

Application: The appellate court reviews the district court's denial of a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and finds no reversible error, affirming the decision.

Reasoning: The appellate review of the record reveals no reversible error, leading to the affirmation of the district court's decision.

Discretion to Forego Oral Argument

Application: The court exercised its discretion to decide the case without oral argument, indicating that the written record and submissions sufficed for their decision-making process.

Reasoning: The court opted not to hold oral argument, determining that the facts and legal arguments were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials, and that further argument would not assist in the decision-making process.

Precedential Value of Unpublished Opinions

Application: The opinion in this case is unpublished and explicitly stated not to serve as binding precedent within the circuit.

Reasoning: Unpublished opinions, like this one, do not serve as binding precedent in the circuit.