Filed: Nov. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7323 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JERROD DEVAUGHN MOORE, a/k/a Pun, a/k/a Big Pun, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:14-cr-00259-RBH-10) Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7323 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JERROD DEVAUGHN MOORE, a/k/a Pun, a/k/a Big Pun, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:14-cr-00259-RBH-10) Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7323
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JERROD DEVAUGHN MOORE, a/k/a Pun, a/k/a Big Pun,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:14-cr-00259-RBH-10)
Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerrod Devaughn Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerrod Devaughn Moore appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 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. Moore,
No. 4:14-cr-00259-RBH-10 (D.S.C., Aug. 6, 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