Filed: Mar. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7688 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARRYL GLEN RILEY, a/k/a Kendu, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:98-cr-00101-HEH-1) Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darryl Glen Riley
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7688 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARRYL GLEN RILEY, a/k/a Kendu, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:98-cr-00101-HEH-1) Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darryl Glen Riley,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7688
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRYL GLEN RILEY, a/k/a Kendu,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:98-cr-00101-HEH-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darryl Glen Riley, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darryl Glen Riley appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for modification of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c) (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. Riley, No. 3:98-cr-
00101-HEH-1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 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