United States v. Holmes

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Holmes

670 F. App'x 194

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 18, 2016

DocketNo. 16-6635

StatusPublished

This text of 670 F. App'x 194 (United States v. Holmes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Holmes, 670 F. App'x 194 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Rodney Holmes appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of its earlier order granting him a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §. 3582(c)(2) (2012). In the prior order, the district court reduced his sentence to the bottom of his amended Guidelines range. In his motion for reconsidera-' tion, Holmes sought a further reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Holmes, No. l:05-cr-01253-MBS-l (D.S.C. Apr. 21, 2016; Nov. 24, 2015). 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Rodney Holmes appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of its earlier order granting him a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §. 3582(c)(2) (2012). In the prior order, the district court reduced his sentence to the bottom of his amended Guidelines range. In his motion for reconsidera-' tion, Holmes sought a further reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Holmes, No. l:05-cr-01253-MBS-l (D.S.C. Apr. 21, 2016; Nov. 24, 2015). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 F. App'x 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-holmes-ca4-2016.