Filed: Mar. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7778 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWIN LLOYD MURRAY, a/k/a Gator, Plaintiff - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00309-MJG-2) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin Lloyd Murray
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7778 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWIN LLOYD MURRAY, a/k/a Gator, Plaintiff - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00309-MJG-2) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin Lloyd Murray,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7778
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWIN LLOYD MURRAY, a/k/a Gator,
Plaintiff - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:03-cr-00309-MJG-2)
Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin Lloyd Murray, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke,
Barbara Slaymaker Sale, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edwin Lloyd Murray appeals the district court’s order
granting his motion for a sentence reduction filed pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
See United States v. Goines,
357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004)
(motion under § 3582(c) “is subject to the discretion of the
district court”). Thus, we affirm the district court’s order.
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