United States v. Osborne

323 F. App'x 286
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Osborne. Read the opinion of the Court — 514 F.3d 377
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 23, 2009·No. No. 08-8264·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Jerome Osborne appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Osborne, No. 2:95-cr-00139-HCM-1 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 22, 2008 & entered Sept. 23, 2008); see United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir.2009) (“[A] district judge is not authorized to reduce a defendant’s sentence below the amended guideline range.”). We deny Osborne’s motion to place the case in abeyance for Dunphy as moot. 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.

AFFIRMED.

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

United States v. Osborne, 323 F. App'x 286 (4th Cir. 2009).

323 F. App'x 286 (United States v. Osborne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Dunphy
551 F.3d 247 (Fourth Circuit, 2009)