US v. James Landingham, No. 09-7075 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7075 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES CLAYTON LANDINGHAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:02-cr-00274-CWH-3) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 2, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Clayton Landingham, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Clayton Landingham appeals the district court s order denying his motion for a reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). of sentence filed We have reviewed the record and find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (motion under § 3582(c) is subject to the discretion of the district court ); United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 727 (4th Cir. 2000). court s States v. order for the Landingham, reasons No. Thus, we affirm the district stated there. 4:02-cr-00274-CWH-3 May 22, entered May 26, 2009). United See (D.S.C. filed We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.