Filed: Nov. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7121 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROMAIRO MABRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:10-cr-00028-1) Submitted: November 17, 2014 Decided: November 25, 2014 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Romairo Mabry, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7121 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROMAIRO MABRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:10-cr-00028-1) Submitted: November 17, 2014 Decided: November 25, 2014 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Romairo Mabry, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7121
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROMAIRO MABRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:10-cr-00028-1)
Submitted: November 17, 2014 Decided: November 25, 2014
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Romairo Mabry, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, Monica D.
Coleman, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Romairo Mabry appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Mabry, No. 2:10-cr-00028-1
(S.D.W. Va. July 9, 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