Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Karl Moore, Sr., 19-4102 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-4102 Visitors: 35
Filed: Dec. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7255 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KARL E. MOORE, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:02-cr-00217-RAJ-JEB-1) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karl E. Moore, Sr., App
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7255


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

KARL E. MOORE, SR.,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:02-cr-00217-RAJ-JEB-1)


Submitted:   December 19, 2013            Decided:   December 23, 2013


Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Karl E. Moore, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.    Laura Marie Everhart,
Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

               Karl E. Moore, Sr., appeals the district court’s order

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence

reduction.       We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error.     Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court.        United States v. Moore, 2:02-cr-00217-RAJ-JEB-1

(E.D.    Va.    July   26,   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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer