Filed: Nov. 30, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6760 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWIN ARNOLDO REYES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:01-cr-00533-PJM-20) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010 Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6760 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWIN ARNOLDO REYES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:01-cr-00533-PJM-20) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010 Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6760
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWIN ARNOLDO REYES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:01-cr-00533-PJM-20)
Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin Arnoldo Reyes, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edwin Arnoldo Reyes appeals from the district court’s
order denying his motion to construe his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)
(2006) motion as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion.
In his informal brief, Reyes challenges an earlier order denying
his § 3582 motion. Assuming that Reyes has properly appealed
this order, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Reyes, No. 8:01-cr-00533-PJM-20 (D. Md.
Mar. 8, 2010). We deny Reyes’ motion for appointment of
counsel. 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