Filed: Oct. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6456 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HORACE ANTONIO TAYLOR, a/k/a Bloody Horace, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:13-cr-01036-JFA-1) Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6456 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HORACE ANTONIO TAYLOR, a/k/a Bloody Horace, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:13-cr-01036-JFA-1) Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6456
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HORACE ANTONIO TAYLOR, a/k/a Bloody Horace,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cr-01036-JFA-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Horace Antonio Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Julius Ness
Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Horace Antonio Taylor appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we deny Taylor’s motion for the appointment of counsel, and we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United
States v. Taylor, No. 3:13-cr-01036-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Mar. 14,
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