Filed: Sep. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7098 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RITA MARSHAL O’NEIL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00203-TLW-7) Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rita Marshal O’neil, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7098 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RITA MARSHAL O’NEIL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00203-TLW-7) Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rita Marshal O’neil, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7098
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RITA MARSHAL O’NEIL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:10-cr-00203-TLW-7)
Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rita Marshal O’neil, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Fisher Sherard,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rita Marshal O’neil appeals the district court’s order
granting her motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. O’neil, No.
4:10-cr-00203-TLW-7 (D.S.C. June 16, 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