Filed: Oct. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONALD CASTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00190-REP-1) Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 23, 2015 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald M. Caston, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONALD CASTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00190-REP-1) Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 23, 2015 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald M. Caston, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONALD CASTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00190-REP-1)
Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 23, 2015
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald M. Caston, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Caston appeals the district court’s orders denying
Caston a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2012), and denying as unauthorized Caston’s motion for
reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Further, the district court properly
recognized that it lacked the authority to entertain a motion
for reconsideration in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See United
States v. Goodwyn,
596 F.3d 233, 235–36 (4th Cir. 2010). We
therefore affirm the orders for the reasons stated by the
district court. See United States v. Caston, No. 3:06–cr–00190-
REP-1 (E.D Va. May 7, 2015 & June 9, 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