Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Jose Mendez, 14-6774 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-6774 Visitors: 51
Filed: Sep. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6774 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSE MANUEL-CALIXT MENDEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:09-cr-00052-FL-1) Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 14-6774


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JOSE MANUEL-CALIXT MENDEZ,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00052-FL-1)


Submitted:   September 25, 2014          Decided:   September 30, 2014


Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jose Manuel-Calixt Mendez, Appellant Pro Se.   Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua Bryan Royster,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

             Jose Manuel-Calixt Mendez appeals the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion for modification of sentence,

18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c) (2012).          We have reviewed the record and

find   no   reversible    error.     Accordingly,    we    affirm    for    the

reasons stated by the district court.            United States v. Mendez,

No. 7:09-cr-00052-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 18, 2014).                  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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer