Filed: Jul. 28, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6831 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUAN FRANCISCO SORTO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:96-cr-00251-JCC-2) Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 28, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juan Francisco Sorto,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6831 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUAN FRANCISCO SORTO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:96-cr-00251-JCC-2) Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 28, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juan Francisco Sorto, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6831 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUAN FRANCISCO SORTO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:96-cr-00251-JCC-2) Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 28, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juan Francisco Sorto, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Leo Fahey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juan Francisco Sorto appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)(2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Sorto’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Sorto, No. 1:96-cr-00251-JCC- 2 (E.D. Va. May 7, 2008). 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 -
