Filed: Sep. 01, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RYAN KENNETH GROOMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00592-DCN-8) Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 1, 2015 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ryan Kenneth Grooms, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RYAN KENNETH GROOMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00592-DCN-8) Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 1, 2015 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ryan Kenneth Grooms, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RYAN KENNETH GROOMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:09-cr-00592-DCN-8)
Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 1, 2015
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ryan Kenneth Grooms, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Modica,
Nathan S. Williams, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ryan Kenneth Grooms appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 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. Grooms, No.
2:09-cr-00592-DCN-8 (D.S.C. June 5, 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