U.S. v. OLVIS, 15-6195. (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20150629121
Visitors: 15
Filed: Jun. 29, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 29, 2015
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Anthony L. Olvis appeals the district court's orders sua sponte granting Olvis a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2012), * and denying as unauthorized Olvis' 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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Anthony L. Olvis appeals the district court's orders sua sponte granting Olvis a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2012), * and denying as unauthorized Olvis' 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..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Anthony L. Olvis appeals the district court's orders sua sponte granting Olvis a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012),* and denying as unauthorized Olvis' 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. Olvis, No. 4:95-cr-00038-RGD-1 (E.D Va. filed Dec. 9, 2014 & entered Dec. 10, 2014; filed Jan. 21, 2015 & entered Jan. 23, 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.
FootNotes
* Although the district court granted Olvis a two-level reduction pursuant to Guidelines Amendment 782, the court declined to further reduce Olvis' sentence.
Source: Leagle
