Narrative Opinion Summary
Ronnie Lee Dunn's appeal of the district court's order denying his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) has been affirmed by the court. The decision is based on a review of the record, which revealed no reversible error. The affirmation relies on the reasoning provided by the district court in the case United States v. Dunn, No. 8:97-er-00761-GRA-1 (D.S.C. Jan. 7, 2009). The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the available materials. The opinion is unpublished and does not serve as binding precedent in the circuit.
Legal Issues Addressed
Oral Argument Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary because the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the written materials.
Reasoning: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the available materials.
Precedential Value of Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The opinion in this case is unpublished and does not serve as binding precedent within the circuit.
Reasoning: The opinion is unpublished and does not serve as binding precedent in the circuit.
Review of District Court's Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision upon finding the reasoning provided by the district court adequate and identifying no reversible error in the record.
Reasoning: The affirmation relies on the reasoning provided by the district court in the case United States v. Dunn, No. 8:97-er-00761-GRA-1 (D.S.C. Jan. 7, 2009).
Sentence Reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviewed the district court's denial of Ronnie Lee Dunn's motion to reduce his sentence and found no reversible error, affirming the decision.
Reasoning: Ronnie Lee Dunn's appeal of the district court's order denying his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) has been affirmed by the court.