Filed: Mar. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7774 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JOSE ANGEL ROSAS-GUILLEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cr-00291-CMC-2) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7774 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JOSE ANGEL ROSAS-GUILLEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cr-00291-CMC-2) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7774
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSE ANGEL ROSAS-GUILLEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cr-00291-CMC-2)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jose Angel Rosas-Guillen, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Rosas-Guillen 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. Rosas-Guillen, No.
3:13-cr-00291-CMC-2 (D.S.C. Oct. 26, 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