Filed: Dec. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7281 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARQUEL DUSHUAN RILEY, a/k/a Mark Riley, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-18) Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7281 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARQUEL DUSHUAN RILEY, a/k/a Mark Riley, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-18) Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7281
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARQUEL DUSHUAN RILEY, a/k/a Mark Riley,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-18)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marquel Dushuan Riley, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Jane
Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marquel Dushuan Riley appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence
reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
Riley also appeals the district court’s order granting his
motion for reconsideration of its order denying a sentence
reduction, but again refusing a sentence reduction. We have
reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the
district court’s decision to deny Riley a sentence reduction.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders denying a
sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). 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