Filed: Mar. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7747 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCUS DARNELL PICKETT, a/k/a Eric Smith, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:09-cr-00178-GRA-1) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7747 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCUS DARNELL PICKETT, a/k/a Eric Smith, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:09-cr-00178-GRA-1) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7747
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCUS DARNELL PICKETT, a/k/a Eric Smith,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cr-00178-GRA-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Darnell Pickett, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean
Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Darnell Pickett appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence
reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Pickett, No. 6:09-cr-00178-GRA-1
(D.S.C. Oct. 1, 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