United States v. Nunez

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Nunez

15 F. App'x 62

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 29, 2001·No. 01-6391·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Partaleon Nunez appeals the district court’s order denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and can discern no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order. See United States v. Holmes, 13 F.3d 1217, 1222 (8th Cir.1994). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. *

*63 AFFIRMED.

*

We decline to consider for the first time on appeal whether Nunez’s assertion that his conviction and sentence violate the precepts *63 of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

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

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Partaleon Nunez appeals the district court’s order denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and can discern no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order. See United States v. Holmes, 13 F.3d 1217, 1222 (8th Cir.1994). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. *

*63 AFFIRMED.

*

We decline to consider for the first time on appeal whether Nunez’s assertion that his conviction and sentence violate the precepts *63 of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

United States v. Nunez, 15 F. App'x 62 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

15 F. App'x 62 (United States v. Nunez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related