Filed: Jul. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6321 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES ELMER GROSS, SR., a/k/a Stink, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:02-cr-00201-CCB-1) Submitted: July 18, 2019 Decided: July 22, 2019 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Elmer Gross,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6321 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES ELMER GROSS, SR., a/k/a Stink, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:02-cr-00201-CCB-1) Submitted: July 18, 2019 Decided: July 22, 2019 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Elmer Gross, S..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6321
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES ELMER GROSS, SR., a/k/a Stink,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:02-cr-00201-CCB-1)
Submitted: July 18, 2019 Decided: July 22, 2019
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Elmer Gross, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Elmer Gross, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his
motion for reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See United States v. Muldrow,
844 F.3d
434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016) (providing standard). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2