US v. Lamont Garrison, No. 08-7532 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 26, 2009.

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7532 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAMONT HAROLD GARRISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:98-cr-00132-JCC-13) Submitted: November 13, 2009 Decided: December 10, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamont Harold Garrison, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lamont Harold Garrison appeals the district court s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ยง 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find Accordingly, no reasons reversible stated by error. the district we court. affirm United for States Garrison, No. 1:98-cr-00132-JCC-13 (E.D. Va. June 2, 2008). the v. See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009). Garrison s motion for preparation of a transcript at Government expense is denied. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal before contentions the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED Garrison filed a notice of appeal outside of the appeal period, and we remanded to the district court to determine whether Garrison had demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the appeal period. See United States v. Garrison, 309 F. App x 691 (4th Cir. 2009) (No. 08-7532). The district court found Garrison demonstrated good cause and therefore deemed the notice of appeal timely filed. Accordingly, we review the appeal on the merits. 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.