Filed: Mar. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7881 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DONNIE J. AUSTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00124-HEH-1) Submitted: March 20, 2013 Decided: March 22, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donnie J. Austin, Appellant Pro Se. P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7881 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DONNIE J. AUSTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00124-HEH-1) Submitted: March 20, 2013 Decided: March 22, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donnie J. Austin, Appellant Pro Se. Pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7881 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DONNIE J. AUSTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00124-HEH-1) Submitted: March 20, 2013 Decided: March 22, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donnie J. Austin, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donnie J. Austin appeals the district court’s order denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Austin, No. 3:02-cr- 00124-HEH-1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 12, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
