Filed: May 10, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7619 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DEMETRIUS HARRISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00083-BO-1) Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: May 10, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Demetrius Harr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7619 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DEMETRIUS HARRISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00083-BO-1) Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: May 10, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Demetrius Harri..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7619
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DEMETRIUS HARRISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00083-BO-1)
Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: May 10, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Demetrius Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Demetrius Harrison appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce
his sentence of imprisonment by nine months. Because the district court correctly
concluded that it lacked the authority to grant Harrison’s motion, we affirm. See United
States v. Goodwyn,
596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010). 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