Filed: Dec. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7362 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JEREMY RAY DANNER, a/k/a Caesar, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:00-cr-00015-RLV-2) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jere
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7362 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JEREMY RAY DANNER, a/k/a Caesar, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:00-cr-00015-RLV-2) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerem..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7362
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JEREMY RAY DANNER, a/k/a Caesar,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:00-cr-00015-RLV-2)
Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremy Ray Danner, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Vincent Talinao
Odulio, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeremy Ray Danner appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduction
of his sentence based on Amendment 750. Our review of the
record demonstrates that Amendment 750 did not reduce Danner’s
Guidelines range of 240 months. See United States v. Munn,
595
F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we affirm. 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