Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Ashanti Henry, 18-6073 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-6073 Visitors: 32
Filed: Apr. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6073 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ASHANTI RHAN HENRY, a/k/a A-1, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00024-JPJ-RSB-1) Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018 Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-6073


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

ASHANTI RHAN HENRY, a/k/a A-1,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00024-JPJ-RSB-1)


Submitted: March 29, 2018                                         Decided: April 3, 2018


Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ashanti Rhan Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States
Attorney, Mary Kathleen Carnell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Ashanti Rhan Henry appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. United States v. Henry, No. 1:12-cr-00024-JPJ-RSB-1 (W.D. Va. Dec. 15,

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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer