Filed: Nov. 08, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6996 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRIS TAMARA PARSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00357-TLW-1) Submitted: November 1, 2012 Decided: November 8, 2012 Before KING, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terris Tamara Parson, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6996 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRIS TAMARA PARSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00357-TLW-1) Submitted: November 1, 2012 Decided: November 8, 2012 Before KING, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terris Tamara Parson, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6996 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRIS TAMARA PARSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00357-TLW-1) Submitted: November 1, 2012 Decided: November 8, 2012 Before KING, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terris Tamara Parson, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terris Tamara Parson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Parson, No. 4:07-cr-00357-TLW-1 (D.S.C. filed May 16, 2012, and entered May 17, 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
