U.S. v. PRITCHETT, 11-7447. (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20111223102
Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 23, 2011
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2011
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ricky Lee Pritchett appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006). Pritchett has also filed a motion for the appointment of appellate counsel, and a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 2255(h) (West Supp. 2011) for authorization to file a second or successive 2255 motion. With respect to the denial of Pritchett's 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) m
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ricky Lee Pritchett appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006). Pritchett has also filed a motion for the appointment of appellate counsel, and a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 2255(h) (West Supp. 2011) for authorization to file a second or successive 2255 motion. With respect to the denial of Pritchett's 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) mo..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Lee Pritchett appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Pritchett has also filed a motion for the appointment of appellate counsel, and a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2011) for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.
With respect to the denial of Pritchett's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Pritchett, No. 4:03-cr-70162-JLK-1 (W.D. Va. Oct. 17, 2011). Moreover, we deny as moot Pritchett's motion for the appointment of appellate counsel, and his motion for reconsideration of our previous order deferring consideration of this motion.
Furthermore, permission to file a § 2255 motion is required only when a movant seeks to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Pritchett has not previously filed a § 2255 motion in the district court. Therefore, we deny the motion as unnecessary.
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.
Source: Leagle
