Filed: Aug. 23, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6807 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEROME FREDERICK SATTERFIELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:99-cr-00131-JAB-1) Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 23, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6807 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEROME FREDERICK SATTERFIELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:99-cr-00131-JAB-1) Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 23, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Je..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6807
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEROME FREDERICK SATTERFIELD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:99-cr-00131-JAB-1)
Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 23, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Frederick Satterfield, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael
Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Frederick Satterfield appeals from the district
court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006), and reducing his
sentence from 190 months to 152 months. He contends that the
court should have also ordered that his sentence run concurrent
to his undischarged state sentence. We have reviewed the record
and find no abuse of discretion. The district court was without
authority to modify that portion of the sentence. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c) (2006); see also, Dillon v. United States,
130 S. Ct.
2683, 2694 (2010). We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2