Filed: May 23, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6262 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH M. MONTGOMERY, JR., a/k/a Richard E. Main, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:98-cr-00289-REP-RCY-1) Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6262 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH M. MONTGOMERY, JR., a/k/a Richard E. Main, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:98-cr-00289-REP-RCY-1) Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6262
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH M. MONTGOMERY, JR., a/k/a Richard E. Main,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:98-cr-00289-REP-RCY-1)
Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth M. Montgomery, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel
Cooke, David Thomas Maguire, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth M. Montgomery, Jr., appeals from the district
court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion
to reduce his sentence. A district court’s decision on whether
to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of
discretion, while its conclusion on the scope of its legal
authority under that provision is reviewed de novo. United
States v. Munn,
595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). Our review
of the record reveals that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Montgomery relief. See United States v.
Smalls,
720 F.3d 193 (4th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s order. United States v. Montgomery, No.
3:98-cr-00289-REP-RCY-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 5, 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