Filed: May 02, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6486 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LASHAWN DEMONT TINSLEY, a/k/a Eric Peterson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00143-BO-1) Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: May 2, 2014 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6486 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LASHAWN DEMONT TINSLEY, a/k/a Eric Peterson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00143-BO-1) Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: May 2, 2014 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6486
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LASHAWN DEMONT TINSLEY, a/k/a Eric Peterson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:01-cr-00143-BO-1)
Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: May 2, 2014
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
LaShawn Demont Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
LaShawn Demont Tinsley appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a
sentence reduction pursuant to recent amendments to the
Sentencing Guidelines and the new statutory minimum sentences in
the Fair Sentencing Act (“FSA”). We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order. United States v. Tinsley, No. 5:01-cr-
00143-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. filed Mar. 19 & entered Mar. 20, 2013); see
United States v. Black,
737 F.3d 280, 287 (4th Cir. 2013)
(holding that § 3582(c)(2) does not provide means to apply FSA
minimums), cert. denied,
2014 WL 956495 (2014). 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