Filed: Mar. 18, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6098 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. GEIDY VERJANO, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:06-cr-00633-HMH) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geidy Ver
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6098 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. GEIDY VERJANO, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:06-cr-00633-HMH) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geidy Verj..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6098 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. GEIDY VERJANO, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:06-cr-00633-HMH) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geidy Verjano, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Geidy Verjano appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to modify her sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). 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. Verjano, No. 6:06- cr-00633-HMH (D.S.C. Jan. 6, 2009). 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
