Filed: May 03, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7694 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. D’LANTIA REMARIO TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-00431-REP-1) Submitted: April 6, 2012 Decided: May 3, 2012 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. D’Lantia Remario Taylor, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7694 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. D’LANTIA REMARIO TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-00431-REP-1) Submitted: April 6, 2012 Decided: May 3, 2012 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. D’Lantia Remario Taylor, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7694
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
D’LANTIA REMARIO TAYLOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00431-REP-1)
Submitted: April 6, 2012 Decided: May 3, 2012
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
D’Lantia Remario Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin
Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
D’Lantia Remario Taylor appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion to correct or amend the court’s order
granting his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582 (2006). We have reviewed the record and conclude that
the court correctly found it was without authority to consider
the motion. See United States v. Goodwyn,
596 F.3d 233, 235
(4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Taylor’s
motion for appointment of counsel. 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