United States v. Latten

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Latten

536 F. App'x 325

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided July 30, 2013·No. No. 13-6810·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Melbourne Clarence Latten appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). The district court denied the motion because the Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 750 did not result in a change to the Guidelines sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court [326] and argument will not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Melbourne Clarence Latten appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). The district court denied the motion because the Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 750 did not result in a change to the Guidelines sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court [326] and argument will not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

United States v. Latten, 536 F. App'x 325 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

536 F. App'x 325 (United States v. Latten) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related