US v. Benjamin Stowers, No. 16-6661 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6661 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BENJAMIN LEE STOWERS, a/k/a Benji Stowers, Defendant - Appellant. No. 16-6667 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS LEE JONES, Defendant - Appellant. No. 16-6708 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHAD DAVID ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant. No. 16-6782 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT LEE BENNETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:11-cr-00053-GEC-1; 7:11-cr-00039GEC-RSB-6; 7:12-cr-00015-GEC-3; 7:09-cr-00045-GEC-1) Submitted: June 28, 2017 Decided: July 20, 2017 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Lee, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellants. John P. Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. 2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Benjamin Lee Stowers, Travis Lee Jones, Chad David Robinson, and Robert Lee Bennett appeal the district court’s orders denying their motions to reduce sentence. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Jones, No. 7:11-cr-00039-GEC-RSB-6 (W.D. Va. May 11, 2016); United States v. Robinson, No. 7:12-cr-00015-GEC-3 (W.D. Va. May 10, 2016); United States v. Bennett, No. 7:09-cr-00045-GEC-1 (W.D. Va. May 10, 2016); United States v. Stowers, No. 7:11-cr-00053-GEC-1 (W.D. Va. May 9, 2016). We deny as moot the pending motion to place this case in abeyance and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
