US v. Patrick Plumlee, No. 08-6857 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6857 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PATRICK KIT PLUMLEE; MAX ORVEL PLUMLEE, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:94-cr-00002-1; 4:94-cr-00002-2) Submitted: March 6, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Kit Plumlee, Max Orvel Plumlee, Appellants Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Patrick Kit Plumlee and Max Orvel Plumlee appeal the district court s orders denying relief on their motion for reduction of sentence filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Plumlee, Nos. 4:94-cr-00002-1; 4:94-cr-00002-2 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 10, 2008; entered Apr. 11, 2008). * legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions before the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED * The Plumlees claim that they were entitled to appointed counsel in their § 3582(c) proceeding, to the extent it was requested below and denied by the district court, is without merit, as there is no constitutional right to counsel in a proceeding under § 3582(c). See United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 730 (4th Cir. 2000). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
