Filed: Sep. 25, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 25, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6616 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MAXIMILLIAN ROBBINS FARROW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00120-LMB-1) Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 25, 2020 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maximillia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6616 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MAXIMILLIAN ROBBINS FARROW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00120-LMB-1) Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 25, 2020 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maximillian..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6616
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MAXIMILLIAN ROBBINS FARROW,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00120-LMB-1)
Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 25, 2020
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maximillian Robbins Farrow, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following his guilty plea, Maximillian Robbins Farrow was convicted of conspiracy
to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. At Farrow’s September 2017 sentencing, the
district court imposed a 48-month term of imprisonment. Farrow did not appeal the
criminal judgment. Instead, in April 2019, Farrow filed a self-styled motion for
clarification of the manner in which the court applied the Sentencing Guidelines in his case.
The district court denied this motion on various grounds, and Farrow now appeals that
order.
Upon review, we discern no error in the district court’s rationale for denying
Farrow’s motion for clarification. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United
States v. Farrow, No. 1:17-cr-00120-LMB-1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 13, 2020). We 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
2