Filed: Mar. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6052 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. KOA DANNETTE MACK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:07-cr-00085-GEC-1) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Koa
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6052 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. KOA DANNETTE MACK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:07-cr-00085-GEC-1) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Koa ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6052
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KOA DANNETTE MACK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:07-cr-00085-GEC-1)
Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Koa Dannette Mack, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Koa Dannette Mack appeals the district court’s order
denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction
of sentence based on Amendments 706 and 750 to the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) (2010). Because neither
amendment has the effect of lowering Mack’s applicable
Guidelines range, we affirm the district court’s order. See
USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s. 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