Filed: Aug. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6997 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONELLA MARIE HARRIEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:03-cr-00287-TLW-2) Submitted: August 10, 2012 Decided: August 23, 2012 Before KING, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donella Marie Harriel, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6997 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONELLA MARIE HARRIEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:03-cr-00287-TLW-2) Submitted: August 10, 2012 Decided: August 23, 2012 Before KING, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donella Marie Harriel, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6997
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONELLA MARIE HARRIEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:03-cr-00287-TLW-2)
Submitted: August 10, 2012 Decided: August 23, 2012
Before KING, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donella Marie Harriel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Donella Marie Harriel appeals the district court’s
order denying her motion for a sentence reduction under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Harriel,
No. 4:03-cr-00287-TLW-2 (D.S.C. May 4, 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