Filed: May 01, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6361 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARIO E. RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a “O”, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00031-FPS-1) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6361 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARIO E. RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a “O”, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00031-FPS-1) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario E..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6361 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARIO E. RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a “O”, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00031-FPS-1) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario E. Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mario E. Rodriguez appeals the district court’s order denying his motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) seeking a reduction of his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Rodriguez, No. 5:08-cr-00031-FPS-1 (N.D.W. Va. filed Jan. 17, 2012 & entered Jan. 18, 2012). 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
