Filed: Feb. 11, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7422 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THURMAN YOUNG, a/k/a Charlie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00055-AWA-DEM-3) Submitted: January 26, 2016 Decided: February 11, 2016 Before KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7422 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THURMAN YOUNG, a/k/a Charlie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00055-AWA-DEM-3) Submitted: January 26, 2016 Decided: February 11, 2016 Before KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7422
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THURMAN YOUNG, a/k/a Charlie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (4:11-cr-00055-AWA-DEM-3)
Submitted: January 26, 2016 Decided: February 11, 2016
Before KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thurman Young, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; Dee
Mullarkey Sterling, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thurman Young appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United
States v. Young, No. 4:11-cr-00055-AWA-DEM-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 28,
2015). 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