Filed: May 01, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6352 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARION MAYS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief District Judge. (1:03-cr-00726-MBS-1) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marion Mays, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ew
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6352 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARION MAYS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief District Judge. (1:03-cr-00726-MBS-1) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marion Mays, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6352 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARION MAYS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief District Judge. (1:03-cr-00726-MBS-1) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marion Mays, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marion Mays appeals the district court’s order denying Mays’ 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court and deny Mays’ motion to appoint counsel. United States v. Mays, No. 1:03-cr-00726-MBS-1 (D.S.C. Dec. 19, 2012). 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
