Filed: May 27, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6146 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellate, v. ROWN WASHINGTON, a/k/a Folly, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (5:11-cr-00636-MBS-1) Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rown Washington, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6146 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellate, v. ROWN WASHINGTON, a/k/a Folly, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (5:11-cr-00636-MBS-1) Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rown Washington, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6146
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellate,
v.
ROWN WASHINGTON, a/k/a Folly,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00636-MBS-1)
Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rown Washington, Appellant Pro Sel. John David Rowell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rown Washington appeals the district court’s order denying
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012) motion for a reduction in
sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Washington, No. 5:11-cr-00636-
MBS-1 (D.S.C. July 15, 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