Filed: Dec. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7671 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMES EDWARD BYRD, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:01-cr-00178-MOC-1) Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7671 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMES EDWARD BYRD, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:01-cr-00178-MOC-1) Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7671
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES EDWARD BYRD, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00178-MOC-1)
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Edward Byrd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Byrd, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
reduction based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. See United States v. Byrd, No.
3:01-cr-00178-MOC-1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 26, 2015). We also deny
Byrd’s motion to appoint counsel. 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