Filed: Oct. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7063 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARCUS DEVARD MASSEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-95-31-V) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus Devard Mass
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7063 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARCUS DEVARD MASSEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-95-31-V) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus Devard Masse..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7063
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARCUS DEVARD MASSEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-95-31-V)
Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Devard Massey, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Devard Massey appeals the district court’s order and
order on reconsideration denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000)
motion to modify his term of incarceration. We have reviewed the
record and the district court’s opinion and find that the district
court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. See
United States v. Turner,
59 F.3d 481, 483 (4th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a
certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
2