Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Rown Washington, 15-6146 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-6146 Visitors: 55
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6146 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellate, v. ROWN WASHINGTON, a/k/a Folly, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
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                            UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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