Filed: Jun. 23, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6211 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. OMAR DIAZ-RIOS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00021-REP-2) Submitted: June 18, 2020 Decided: June 23, 2020 Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Omar Diaz-Rios, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6211 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. OMAR DIAZ-RIOS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00021-REP-2) Submitted: June 18, 2020 Decided: June 23, 2020 Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Omar Diaz-Rios, Appellant Pro S..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6211
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OMAR DIAZ-RIOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00021-REP-2)
Submitted: June 18, 2020 Decided: June 23, 2020
Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Omar Diaz-Rios, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Omar Diaz-Rios appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction
of sentence pursuant to § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat.
5194. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Diaz-Rios, No. 3:10-cr-00021-
REP-2 (E.D. Va., Dec. 17, 2019). 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