Filed: Aug. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6938 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAUNTE TORRANE LASSITER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:07-cr-00060-RBS-TEM-3) Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6938 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAUNTE TORRANE LASSITER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:07-cr-00060-RBS-TEM-3) Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6938
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAUNTE TORRANE LASSITER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:07-cr-00060-RBS-TEM-3)
Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shaunte Torrane Lassiter, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie
Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shaunte Torrane Lassiter appeals the district court’s
orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion and
motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error in the court’s denial of § 3582(c)(2)
relief. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Lassiter, No. 2:07-cr-00060-
RBS-TEM-3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 19, 2012). Because the district court
lacked authority to reconsider its initial order, see United
States v. Goodwyn,
596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010), we
affirm the court’s denial of Lassiter’s motion to reconsider.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2