Narrative Opinion Summary
Robert Moses Wilkerson's appeal against the district court's denial of his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) has been affirmed. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, leading to the conclusion that the district court's order stands. The case, United States v. Wilkerson, is noted as No. 5:96-cr-00167-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 7, 2013). The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the relevant facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials. Unpublished opinions like this one do not serve as binding precedent within the circuit.
Legal Issues Addressed
Necessity of Oral Argumentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found oral argument unnecessary because the submitted materials sufficiently presented the relevant facts and legal issues.
Reasoning: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the relevant facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials.
Precedential Value of Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court noted that unpublished opinions do not serve as binding precedent within the circuit.
Reasoning: Unpublished opinions like this one do not serve as binding precedent within the circuit.
Review of Reversible Errorsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determined that the review of the record did not reveal any reversible error, thus supporting the district court's decision.
Reasoning: The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, leading to the conclusion that the district court's order stands.
Sentence Reduction 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 a motion for sentence reduction, indicating that no reversible error was found in the district court's decision.
Reasoning: Robert Moses Wilkerson's appeal against the district court's denial of his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) has been affirmed.