Filed: Jul. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6567 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDREW WILLIAM JONES, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00502-JCC-1) Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew William Jones, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6567 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDREW WILLIAM JONES, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00502-JCC-1) Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew William Jones, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6567 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDREW WILLIAM JONES, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00502-JCC-1) Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew William Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Michael C. Vasiliadis, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andrew William Jones appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for a reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Jones, No. 1:08-cr-00502-JCC-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 16, 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
