Filed: Apr. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8031 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSUE MONROY, a/k/a Feo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cr-00237-AW-1) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 4, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Josue Monroy, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8031 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSUE MONROY, a/k/a Feo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cr-00237-AW-1) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 4, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Josue Monroy, Appellant Pro Se. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8031 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSUE MONROY, a/k/a Feo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cr-00237-AW-1) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 4, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Josue Monroy, Appellant Pro Se. George Jarrod Hazel, Arun G. Rao, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Josue Monroy appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 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. Monroy, No. 8:10-cr-00237-AW-1 (D. Md. Nov. 1, 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
