Filed: Jun. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6489 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CRYSTAL STARR METZ, a/k/a Crystal Star Metz, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-2) Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6489 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CRYSTAL STARR METZ, a/k/a Crystal Star Metz, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-2) Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6489
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CRYSTAL STARR METZ, a/k/a Crystal Star Metz,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-2)
Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Crystal Starr Metz, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia; Zelda
Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Crystal Starr Metz appeals the district court’s order
denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence
reduction. 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. Metz, No. 3:12-cr-00057-
GMG-RWT-2 (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 7, 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