Filed: Oct. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6702 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SEAN ANTHONY ROBINSON, a/k/a Black, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00204-HEH-1) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean Anthony
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6702 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SEAN ANTHONY ROBINSON, a/k/a Black, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00204-HEH-1) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean Anthony ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6702
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SEAN ANTHONY ROBINSON, a/k/a Black,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:06-cr-00204-HEH-1)
Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sean Anthony Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill,
Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Heather L. Hart, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sean Anthony Robinson appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to reconsider the district court’s prior
orders denying, and later granting, a sentence reduction under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). Because the district court
lacked jurisdiction to consider Robinson’s motion for
reconsideration, we affirm the denial of relief. See United
States v. Goodwyn,
596 F.3d 233, 234 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding
district court lacks authority to grant motion to reconsider
ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion). 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