Filed: Oct. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6960 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WALTER MITCHELL, a/k/a June, a/k/a Junie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cr-00156-JRS-2) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6960 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WALTER MITCHELL, a/k/a June, a/k/a Junie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cr-00156-JRS-2) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6960
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WALTER MITCHELL, a/k/a June, a/k/a Junie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00156-JRS-2)
Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey,
Assistant United States Attorney, Erik Sean Siebert, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Walter Mitchell appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction
of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. See United States v. Mann,
709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir.
2013) (reviewing district court’s decision under § 3582(c)(2)
for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Mitchell, No. 3:11-cr-00156-JRS-2 (E.D. Va. July 15, 2015). 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