Filed: Jun. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6095 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEVIN NEIL GUNDRY, a/k/a “Neil”, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00063-RBS-TEM-7) Submitted: May 28, 2015 Decided: June 5, 2015 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6095 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEVIN NEIL GUNDRY, a/k/a “Neil”, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00063-RBS-TEM-7) Submitted: May 28, 2015 Decided: June 5, 2015 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6095
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEVIN NEIL GUNDRY, a/k/a “Neil”,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00063-RBS-TEM-7)
Submitted: May 28, 2015 Decided: June 5, 2015
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Devin Neil Gundry, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham,
II, Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; Gurney Wingate Grant, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Devin Gundry appeals the district court’s orders denying
his motion for reduction of sentence and his motion for
reconsideration. We find no abuse of direction. See United
States v. Mann,
709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s denial of relief. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the material before this court and
argument will not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2