Narrative Opinion Summary
Anthony K. Rouse's appeal of the district court's order denying his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) has been affirmed by a PER CURIAM opinion. The appellate court found no reversible error after reviewing the record and upheld the district court's reasoning. The decision referenced is United States v. Rouse, No. 3:01-cr-00015-jpj-2 (W.D.Va. Sept. 4, 2009). The court chose not to hold oral arguments, determining that the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the written materials, and that further argument would not enhance the decision-making process. The judgment is affirmed. Unpublished opinions, such as this one, are not considered binding precedent in this circuit.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Procedure and Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court conducted a review of the record and upheld the district court's decision, affirming the judgment without finding any reversible error.
Reasoning: The appellate court found no reversible error after reviewing the record and upheld the district court's reasoning.
Modification of Sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviewed and denied the motion to modify the sentence as there was no reversible error found in the district court's decision.
Reasoning: Anthony K. Rouse's appeal of the district court's order denying his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) has been affirmed by a PER CURIAM opinion.
Oral Argument in Appellate Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the written materials sufficiently presented the facts and legal issues.
Reasoning: The court chose not to hold oral arguments, determining that the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the written materials, and that further argument would not enhance the decision-making process.
Precedential Value of Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The opinion in this case does not serve as binding precedent within the circuit as it is an unpublished opinion.
Reasoning: Unpublished opinions, such as this one, are not considered binding precedent in this circuit.