Filed: Dec. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6759 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. No. 15-6762 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:01-cr-00712-HMH-1; 8:01-cr-00240-HMH-1) Submitted: December 17, 2015 D
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6759 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. No. 15-6762 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:01-cr-00712-HMH-1; 8:01-cr-00240-HMH-1) Submitted: December 17, 2015 De..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6759
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-6762
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:01-cr-00712-HMH-1; 8:01-cr-00240-HMH-1)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William M. Bryson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
William M. Bryson, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders
denying his motions for modification of the terms of his
supervised release. We have reviewed the record and find no
abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s orders. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2)
(2012). 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
3