Filed: Dec. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7291 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY CHARLES PRINCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:06-cr-00012-HCM-TEM-1) Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015 Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7291 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY CHARLES PRINCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:06-cr-00012-HCM-TEM-1) Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015 Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7291
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY CHARLES PRINCE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:06-cr-00012-HCM-TEM-1)
Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015
Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Charles Prince, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott
Capotosto, Kevin Michael Comstock, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Charles Prince appeals the district court’s orders
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2012) motion and denying Prince’s
motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. See United States v. Vaughn, __ F.3d __, __,
No. 15-1416,
2015 WL 7280632, at *4 (1st Cir. Nov. 18, 2015).
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Prince, No. 2:06-cr-00012-HCM-TEM-1
(E.D. Va. June 2, 2015 & July 28, 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