Filed: Jun. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6375 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CEDRICK L. SNIPES, a/k/a Cederick L. Snipes, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:05-cr-00718-PMD-1) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ce
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6375 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CEDRICK L. SNIPES, a/k/a Cederick L. Snipes, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:05-cr-00718-PMD-1) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ced..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6375 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CEDRICK L. SNIPES, a/k/a Cederick L. Snipes, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:05-cr-00718-PMD-1) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cedrick L. Snipes, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Thomas Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cedrick L. Snipes appeals the district court’s order denying his motion seeking a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error, given that Snipes is ineligible for the reduction that he seeks. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. United States v. Snipes, No. 2:05-cr-00718- PMD-1 (D.S.C. Feb. 13, 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
