Filed: Dec. 01, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7097 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RONALD EVANS, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:06-cr-00162-RAJ-JEB-7) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 1, 2010 Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ron
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7097 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RONALD EVANS, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:06-cr-00162-RAJ-JEB-7) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 1, 2010 Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rona..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7097
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RONALD EVANS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:06-cr-00162-RAJ-JEB-7)
Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 1, 2010
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Evans, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ronald Evans appeals the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of
the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2006) motion for sentence reduction based upon Amendment 706 to
the Sentencing Guidelines. As the district court lacked the
authority to grant reconsideration of its previous order, see
United States v. Goodwyn,
596 F.3d 233 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
130 S. Ct. 3530 (2010), we affirm the district court's order
denying Evans’ Rule 60(b) motion. 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