Filed: Aug. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6922 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID ZEBROWSKI, a/k/a Dog, David Stewart, a/k/a Lewis Brady, a/k/a Mad Dog, a/k/a Eric Conrad Smith, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:96-cr-00041-JRS-3) Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6922 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID ZEBROWSKI, a/k/a Dog, David Stewart, a/k/a Lewis Brady, a/k/a Mad Dog, a/k/a Eric Conrad Smith, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:96-cr-00041-JRS-3) Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, an..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6922
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID ZEBROWSKI, a/k/a Dog, David Stewart, a/k/a Lewis
Brady, a/k/a Mad Dog, a/k/a Eric Conrad Smith,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:96-cr-00041-JRS-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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Zebrowski, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel Cooke,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Zebrowski appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence
reduction and denying his motion for reconsideration. We review
for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision on whether
to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and review de novo a
court’s conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under
that provision. United States v. Munn,
595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th
Cir. 2010). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of
discretion by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Zebrowski, No. 3:96-cr-00041-JRS-3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 2, 2012; May
8, 2012). 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