Filed: Jun. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6719 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEROMY BERNARD DEAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:10-cr-00120-JRS-1) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 20, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeromy Bernard Deane, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6719 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEROMY BERNARD DEAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:10-cr-00120-JRS-1) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 20, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeromy Bernard Deane, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6719
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEROMY BERNARD DEAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:10-cr-00120-JRS-1)
Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 20, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeromy Bernard Deane, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Aber Brumberg,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeromy Bernard Deane appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion and
denying his motion to hold its decision in abeyance pending the
Supreme Court’s decision in Hill v. United States, No. 11-5721,
and Dorsey v. United States, No. 11-5683. We have reviewed the
record and find no abuse of discretion by the district court
with respect to its denial of either motion. See Rhines v.
Weber,
544 U.S. 269, 276 (2005); United States v. Munn,
595 F.3d
183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). See also U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual (“USSG”) § 1B1.10(b)(2); USSG App. C, Amend. 759 (2011);
United States v. Stewart,
595 F.3d 197, 201-03 (4th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Deane, No. 3:10-cr-00120-JRS-1 (E.D.
Va. Apr. 4, 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