United States v. Metz

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Metz

653 F. App'x 228

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 29, 2016·No. No. 16-6489·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Crystal Starr Metz appeals the district court’s' order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence 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. Metz, No. 3:12-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-2, 2014 WL 5810689 (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 7, 2016). 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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Crystal Starr Metz appeals the district court’s' order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence 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. Metz, No. 3:12-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-2, 2014 WL 5810689 (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 7, 2016). 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

United States v. Metz, 653 F. App'x 228 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

653 F. App'x 228 (United States v. Metz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related