Filed: Feb. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7563 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NOEL UMANZOR MARTEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00103-CMH-4) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Noel Umanzor Martel,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7563 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NOEL UMANZOR MARTEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00103-CMH-4) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Noel Umanzor Martel, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7563
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NOEL UMANZOR MARTEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00103-CMH-4)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Noel Umanzor Martel, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Riley Pedersen,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Noel Umanzor Martel appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for modification of sentence. Once a
sentence is imposed, the authority of a district court to modify
it is strictly circumscribed. United States v. Addonizio,
442
U.S. 178, 189 (1979); United States v. Jackson,
802 F.2d 712,
716 (4th Cir. 1986). The district court had no such authority
here, and we therefore affirm the denial of Martel’s motion for
modification. 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