Filed: Oct. 31, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7093 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LORENZO ADDERLY, a/k/a Kendrick A. McKenzie, a/k/a Son-Son, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-74) Submitted: October 23, 2003 Decided: October 31, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7093 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LORENZO ADDERLY, a/k/a Kendrick A. McKenzie, a/k/a Son-Son, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-74) Submitted: October 23, 2003 Decided: October 31, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7093 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LORENZO ADDERLY, a/k/a Kendrick A. McKenzie, a/k/a Son-Son, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-74) Submitted: October 23, 2003 Decided: October 31, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenzo Adderly, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lorenzo Adderly appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a downward departure in his sentence. Because Adderly had no pending challenge to his sentence and no court had ordered his resentencing, we affirm the district court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion for a downward departure. 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
