Filed: Jan. 13, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7221 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAUL GARCIA-BENITEZ, a/k/a Mario, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00046-GEC-3) Submitted: November 12, 2010 Decided: January 13, 2011 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Saul Garcia-
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7221 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAUL GARCIA-BENITEZ, a/k/a Mario, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00046-GEC-3) Submitted: November 12, 2010 Decided: January 13, 2011 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Saul Garcia-B..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7221
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAUL GARCIA-BENITEZ, a/k/a Mario,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (5:06-cr-00046-GEC-3)
Submitted: November 12, 2010 Decided: January 13, 2011
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Saul Garcia-Benitez, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Saul Garcia-Benitez appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction
of sentence based on Amendment 706 to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Garcia-Benitez, No.
5:06-cr-00046-GEC-3 (W.D. Va. June 5, 2009). 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