Filed: Feb. 05, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7250 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANSON DIAZ LAWRENCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:00-cr-00052-HCM-1) Submitted: January 7, 2009 Decided: February 5, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anson Diaz
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7250 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANSON DIAZ LAWRENCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:00-cr-00052-HCM-1) Submitted: January 7, 2009 Decided: February 5, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anson Diaz L..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7250
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANSON DIAZ LAWRENCE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:00-cr-00052-HCM-1)
Submitted: January 7, 2009 Decided: February 5, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anson Diaz Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anson Diaz Lawrence appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). 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). Thus, we affirm the district court’s order
for the reasons stated there. See United States v. Lawrence,
No. 2:00-cr-00052-HCM-1 (E.D. Va. June 24, 2008). 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