Filed: Jul. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6338 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JOSEPH LEON KAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (6:09-cr-00252-1) Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 22, 2016 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Leon Kay, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6338 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JOSEPH LEON KAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (6:09-cr-00252-1) Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 22, 2016 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Leon Kay, Appellant Pro Se. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6338
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH LEON KAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (6:09-cr-00252-1)
Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 22, 2016
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Leon Kay, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, Steven Loew,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Leon Kay 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. Kay, No. 6:09-cr-00252-
1 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 18, 2016). 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