Filed: Jun. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6439 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN ANTHONY FRILANDO, a/k/a Chino Frilando, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:97-cr-00084-CWH-1) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Antho
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6439 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN ANTHONY FRILANDO, a/k/a Chino Frilando, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:97-cr-00084-CWH-1) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Anthon..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6439
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN ANTHONY FRILANDO, a/k/a Chino Frilando,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (4:97-cr-00084-CWH-1)
Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Anthony Frilando, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Anthony Frilando appeals the district court’s
order granting his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Frilando, No. 4:97-cr-00084-CWH-1 (D.S.C. Feb. 29, 2012); see
United States v. Dunphy,
551 F.3d 247, 251–52 (4th Cir. 2009)
(holding that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize sentence below
minimum of amended Guidelines range); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 1B1.10(b)(2) (2011). 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