Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. John Riddick, SR., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of John D. Riddick Sr.'s motion for a reduction of sentence. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, it affirmed the district court's order denying Riddick's motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-02-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7669

    Original Title

    United States v. John Riddick, Sr., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of John D. Riddick Sr.'s motion for a reduction of sentence. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, it affirmed the district court's order denying Riddick's motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    United States v. John Riddick, SR., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of John D. Riddick Sr.'s motion for a reduction of sentence. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, it affirmed the district court's order denying Riddick's motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-7669

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    JOHN D. RIDDICK, SR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District
    Judge. (2:00-cr-00067-AWA-2)

    Submitted:

    January 23, 2013

    Decided:

    February 6, 2013

    Before KING, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    John D. Riddick, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,


    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Joseph Evan DePadilla,
    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Norfolk,
    Virginia,
    for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    John
    order denying

    D.

    Riddick,

    his

    motion

    Sr.,
    for

    U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006).


    find no reversible error.
    courts order.

    appeals

    reduction

    the
    of

    district
    sentence

    courts
    under

    18

    We have reviewed the record and


    Accordingly, we affirm the district

    United States v. Riddick, No. 2:00-cr-00067-

    AWA-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2012).

    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

    You might also like