Filed: Sep. 04, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6624 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TYRON MORTON, a/k/a Ty, a/k/a McKie Tyron Morton, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00466-MBS-9) Submitted: August 28, 2015 Decided: September 4, 2015 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6624 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TYRON MORTON, a/k/a Ty, a/k/a McKie Tyron Morton, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00466-MBS-9) Submitted: August 28, 2015 Decided: September 4, 2015 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6624
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TYRON MORTON, a/k/a Ty, a/k/a McKie Tyron Morton,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00466-MBS-9)
Submitted: August 28, 2015 Decided: September 4, 2015
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyron Morton, Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tyron Morton appeals the district court’s order denying his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motions for a sentence reduction.
We generally review an order granting or denying a § 3582(c)(2)
motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Goines,
357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004). We review de novo, however,
a district court’s determination of the scope of its authority
under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Dunphy,
551 F.3d 247, 250
(4th Cir. 2009). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the
relevant legal authorities and conclude that the district court
did not err in denying Morton’s motions for a sentence
reduction. We therefore 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2