Filed: Feb. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7431 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LENNY CAIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00019-ELH-6) Submitted: February 9, 2018 Decided: February 15, 2018 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lenny Lyle Cain, Appellant Pro Se. Clinton
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7431 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LENNY CAIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00019-ELH-6) Submitted: February 9, 2018 Decided: February 15, 2018 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lenny Lyle Cain, Appellant Pro Se. Clinton J..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7431
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LENNY CAIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00019-ELH-6)
Submitted: February 9, 2018 Decided: February 15, 2018
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lenny Lyle Cain, Appellant Pro Se. Clinton Jacob Fuchs, Assistant United States
Attorney, Kenneth Sutherland Clark, Mushtaq Zakir Gunja, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lenny Cain appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2012) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See
United States v. Cain, No. 1:12-cr-00019-ELH-6 (D. Md. filed Oct. 17, 2017; entered
Oct. 18, 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