Filed: Aug. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-1060 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Tracy Vaughn, also known as Chopper lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha _ Submitted: August 19, 2016 Filed: August 24, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Tracy Vaughn appeals after the district court1 denied his motion for
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-1060 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Tracy Vaughn, also known as Chopper lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha _ Submitted: August 19, 2016 Filed: August 24, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Tracy Vaughn appeals after the district court1 denied his motion for a..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1060
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Tracy Vaughn, also known as Chopper
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: August 19, 2016
Filed: August 24, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Tracy Vaughn appeals after the district court1 denied his motion for a sentence
reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). After careful de novo review of the record,
1
The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska.
we find no reason to reverse the district court’s denial of Vaughn’s motion for a
sentence reduction. See United States v. Logan,
710 F.3d 856, 857 (8th Cir. 2013)
(appeals court reviews de novo district court’s determination that movant was not
eligible for reduction under § 3582(c)(2)).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and Vaughn’s pro
se objection to submission of this appeal without oral argument is denied.
______________________________
-2-