Filed: Jun. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6285 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER TINO COLON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00406-FDW-CH-1) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Tino Colon, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6285 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER TINO COLON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00406-FDW-CH-1) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Tino Colon, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6285 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER TINO COLON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00406-FDW-CH-1) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Tino Colon, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Tino Colon appeals the district court’s order denying a reduction in his sentence under 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. See United States v. Colon, No. 3:05-cr- 00406-FDW-CH-1 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 8, 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
