Filed: Jun. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6553 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:05-cr-01163-HMH-1) Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015 Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Wright, Appellant Pr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6553 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:05-cr-01163-HMH-1) Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015 Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Wright, Appellant Pro..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6553
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID WRIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:05-cr-01163-HMH-1)
Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015
Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Wright appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his motion for a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (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. Wright, No. 6:05-cr-
01163-HMH-1 (D.S.C. Apr. 7, 2015). 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