Filed: May 19, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6261 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TONY CURTIS SPIVEY, a/k/a Tony-Red, 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-19) Submitted: May 2, 2016 Decided: May 19, 2016 Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6261 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TONY CURTIS SPIVEY, a/k/a Tony-Red, 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-19) Submitted: May 2, 2016 Decided: May 19, 2016 Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per c..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6261
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TONY CURTIS SPIVEY, a/k/a Tony-Red,
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-19)
Submitted: May 2, 2016 Decided: May 19, 2016
Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tony Curtis Spivey, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham,
II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia,
Dee Mullarkey Sterling, Assistant United States Attorney,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tony Curtis Spivey appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction
of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Spivey, No. 4:11-cr-00055-AWA-
DEM-19 (E.D. Va. Feb. 11, 2016). 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