Filed: Mar. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7231 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ANTHONY DAVE GREEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00968-MBS-7) Submitted: February 26, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016 Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Dave Green, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7231 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ANTHONY DAVE GREEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00968-MBS-7) Submitted: February 26, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016 Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Dave Green, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7231
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY DAVE GREEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00968-MBS-7)
Submitted: February 26, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016
Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Dave Green, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale,
Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Dave Green appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United
States v. Green, No. 1:10-cr-00968-MBS-7 (D.S.C. dated July 9,
2015 & entered July 13, 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