United States v. Montgomery

649 F. App'x 356
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 23, 2016
DocketNo. 16-6262
StatusPublished

This text of 649 F. App'x 356 (United States v. Montgomery) 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. Montgomery, 649 F. App'x 356 (4th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth M. Montgomery, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3682(c)(2) (2012) motion to reduce his sentence. A district court’s decision on whether to reduce a sentence under § 3682(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion, while its conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under that provision is reviewed de novo. United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir.2010). [357]*357Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Montgomery relief. See United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193 (4th Cir.2013). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Montgomery, No. 3:98-cr-00289-REP-RCY-1 (E.D.Va. Feb. 5, 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

Related

United States v. Mitchell Smalls
720 F.3d 193 (Fourth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Munn
595 F.3d 183 (Fourth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
649 F. App'x 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-montgomery-ca4-2016.