United States v. Pickett

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Pickett

635 F. App'x 108

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 2, 2016·No. No. 15-7747·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Darnell Pickett appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Pickett, No. 6:09-cr-00178-GRA-1 (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2015). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Marcus Darnell Pickett appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Pickett, No. 6:09-cr-00178-GRA-1 (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2015). 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. Pickett, 635 F. App'x 108 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

635 F. App'x 108 (United States v. Pickett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related