United States v. Richardson

193 F. App'x 207
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Richardson. Read the opinion of the Court — 128 F. App'x 305
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 2, 2006·No. No. 06-6499·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel A. Richardson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Richardson, No. 2:96-cr-00153-RAJ-1 (E.D.Va. Mar. 2, 2006); see also United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir.2005) (holding United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), is inapplicable to § 3582(c)(2) motions), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 1643, 164 L.Ed.2d 351 (2006). 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.

DISMISSED.

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

United States v. Richardson, 193 F. App'x 207 (4th Cir. 2006).

193 F. App'x 207 (United States v. Richardson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Matthew Mark Moreno
421 F.3d 1217 (Eleventh Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)