US v. Jasper Allen, No. 10-6319 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: <
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 16, 2010.
Download PDF
Filed: April 8, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ___________________ No. 10-6319 (5:03-cr-00299-BO-1) ___________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JASPER TUJUIAN ALLEN, Defendant Appellant. ___________________ O R D E R ___________________ Upon consideration of appellant s motion to amend opinion, the Court grants the motion and amends the first sentence of the text to read: Jasper Tujuian Allen appeals the district court s order denying his motion to reopen his sentence. For the Court /s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6319 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JASPER TUJUIAN ALLEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00299-BO-1) Submitted: June 29, 2010 Decided: July 16, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jasper Tujuian Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jasper order denying Tujuian his Allen motion to appeals reopen his the district sentence. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. court s We have Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Allen, No. 5:03-cr-00299-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 2010). 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.
