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. Luster

Citation: 315 F. App'x 458Docket: No. 08-8430

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; March 9, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Jamar Luster's appeal regarding the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) has been affirmed by a PER CURIAM opinion. The court found no reversible error after reviewing the record, confirming the district court's reasoning. The ruling references the prior case, United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2009). Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials. The decision is not published and is not considered binding precedent in the circuit.

Legal Issues Addressed

Necessity of Oral Argument

Application: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the issues were adequately presented in the written submissions.

Reasoning: Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials.

Precedential Value of Unpublished Opinions

Application: The decision in this case is not published and therefore does not serve as binding precedent within the circuit.

Reasoning: The decision is not published and is not considered binding precedent in the circuit.

Review of District Court Reasoning

Application: The appellate court confirmed the district court's reasoning in denying the sentence reduction motion, finding no grounds for reversal.

Reasoning: The court found no reversible error after reviewing the record, confirming the district court's reasoning.

Sentence Reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Application: The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Jamar Luster's motion for a sentence reduction, indicating no reversible error after reviewing the record.

Reasoning: Jamar Luster's appeal regarding the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) has been affirmed by a PER CURIAM opinion.