Filed: Feb. 25, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8166 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RITCHIE JOHN HORVATH, III, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:05-cr-00008-FFF-6) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ritchie Jo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8166 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RITCHIE JOHN HORVATH, III, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:05-cr-00008-FFF-6) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ritchie Joh..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8166 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RITCHIE JOHN HORVATH, III, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:05-cr-00008-FFF-6) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ritchie John Horvath, III, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ritchie John Horvath, III, appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for modification of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Horvath, No. 4:05-cr-00008-FFF-6 (W.D. Va. Sept. 2, 2008; Sept. 18, 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
