Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Cross, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of William Terrence Cross's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. The district court had previously denied Cross's motion for a sentence reduction on April 13, 2010. Cross then filed a motion for reconsideration of that denial on April 19, which the district court also denied. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of reconsideration, noting that the district court lacked authority to reconsider its previous denial of the sentence reduction motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-10-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6882

    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    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of William Terrence Cross's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. The district court had previously denied Cross's motion for a sentence reduction on April 13, 2010. Cross then filed a motion for reconsideration of that denial on April 19, which the district court also denied. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of reconsideration, noting that the district court lacked authority to reconsider its previous denial of the sentence reduction motion.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Cross, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of William Terrence Cross's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. The district court had previously denied Cross's motion for a sentence reduction on April 13, 2010. Cross then filed a motion for reconsideration of that denial on April 19, which the district court also denied. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of reconsideration, noting that the district court lacked authority to reconsider its previous denial of the sentence reduction motion.

    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. 10-6882

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1)

    Submitted:

    October 14, 2010

    Decided:

    October 22, 2010

    Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    William Terrence Cross, Appellant


    Tayman,
    Assistant
    United
    States
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro


    Attorney,
    Newport
    News,

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    William Terrence Cross appeals the district courts
    order

    denying

    reconsideration

    of

    3582(c)(2)

    its

    reduction.

    The district courts order denying the reduction was

    reconsideration

    denied.

    of

    for

    denying

    U.S.C.

    for

    motion

    order

    Crosss 18

    entered on April 13, 2010.

    (2006)

    previous

    sentence

    On April 19, Cross filed a motion

    that

    order,

    which

    the

    district

    court

    As the district court lacked the authority to grant

    reconsideration of its previous order, United States v. Goodwyn,


    596 F.3d 233 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3530 (2010),
    we affirm the district courts order denying reconsideration.
    We

    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    as

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like