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. Edwards

Citation: 319 F. App'x 260Docket: No. 08-8450

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; March 24, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Reginald Leon Edwards appealed the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration regarding a sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) from 2006. The appellate court, after reviewing the record, found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's decision, referencing the reasons provided in the original order. The case is noted as United States v. Edwards, No. 6:07-cr00014-nkm-1 from the Western District of Virginia, dated November 5, 2008. Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials. The affirmation is based on a per curiam opinion, and it is noted that unpublished opinions do not serve as binding precedent in this circuit.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Review and Reversible Error

Application: The appellate court reviewed the record and upheld the district court's decision, indicating no reversible error was found in the proceedings.

Reasoning: The appellate court, after reviewing the record, found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's decision, referencing the reasons provided in the original order.

Oral Argument in Appellate Proceedings

Application: Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the submitted materials were sufficient to present the facts and legal issues.

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Precedential Value of Unpublished Opinions

Application: The court noted that unpublished opinions do not serve as binding precedent in this circuit, affecting the weight and authority of the decision.

Reasoning: The affirmation is based on a per curiam opinion, and it is noted that unpublished opinions do not serve as binding precedent in this circuit.

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

Application: The appellant's request for modification of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) was denied, and the appellate court found no reversible error in this decision.

Reasoning: Reginald Leon Edwards appealed the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration regarding a sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) from 2006.