Filed: Sep. 27, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7037 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DAVID SANJURJO, a/k/a Mickey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:98-cr-00338-REP-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7037 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DAVID SANJURJO, a/k/a Mickey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:98-cr-00338-REP-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7037 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DAVID SANJURJO, a/k/a Mickey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:98-cr-00338-REP-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Sanjurjo, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Sanjurjo appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Sanjurjo, No. 3:98-cr-00338-REP-1 (E.D. Va. May 9, 2013). 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
