Filed: Mar. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7622 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLAUDIO OTERO, JR., a/k/a Bill, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:99-cr-70054-NKM-6) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 27, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claudio Ot
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7622 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLAUDIO OTERO, JR., a/k/a Bill, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:99-cr-70054-NKM-6) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 27, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claudio Ote..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7622
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CLAUDIO OTERO, JR., a/k/a Bill,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (6:99-cr-70054-NKM-6)
Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 27, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claudio Otero, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Claudio Otero, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm. United States v. Otero, No. 6:99-cr-70054-NKM-6
(W.D. Va. Nov 18, 2011). 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