Filed: Jul. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6347 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALBERT SHAW NELSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (5:95-cr-00333-CMC-5) Submitted: July 18, 2017 Decided: July 20, 2017 Before MOTZ, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Shaw Nelson, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6347 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALBERT SHAW NELSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (5:95-cr-00333-CMC-5) Submitted: July 18, 2017 Decided: July 20, 2017 Before MOTZ, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Shaw Nelson, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6347
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALBERT SHAW NELSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (5:95-cr-00333-CMC-5)
Submitted: July 18, 2017 Decided: July 20, 2017
Before MOTZ, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Shaw Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Albert Shaw Nelson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his motion to
reconsider the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of
sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Nelson, No.
5:95-cr-00333-CMC-5 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2017). 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