Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Shaunte Lassiter, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Shaunte Torrane Lassiter's motion for reduction of sentence and motion for reconsideration. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's denial of relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Additionally, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to reconsider as the district court lacked authority to reconsider its initial order denying relief.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-08-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6938

    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 Shaunte Torrane Lassiter's motion for reduction of sentence and motion for reconsideration. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's denial of relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Additionally, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to reconsider as the district court lacked authority to reconsider its initial order denying relief.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Shaunte Lassiter, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Shaunte Torrane Lassiter's motion for reduction of sentence and motion for reconsideration. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's denial of relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Additionally, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to reconsider as the district court lacked authority to reconsider its initial order denying relief.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 12-6938

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    SHAUNTE TORRANE LASSITER,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
    District Judge. (2:07-cr-00060-RBS-TEM-3)

    Submitted:

    August 16, 2012

    Decided:

    August 21, 2012

    Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Shaunte Torrane Lassiter, Appellant Pro Se.


    Laura Marie
    Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Shaunte Torrane Lassiter appeals the district courts
    orders

    denying

    his

    18

    U.S.C.

    motion for reconsideration.

    3582(c)(2)

    (2006)

    motion

    and

    We have reviewed the record and

    find no reversible error in the courts denial of 3582(c)(2)


    relief.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.

    United States v. Lassiter, No. 2:07-cr-00060-

    RBS-TEM-3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 19, 2012).

    Because the district court

    lacked authority to reconsider its initial order, see United


    States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010), we
    affirm the courts denial of Lassiters motion to reconsider.
    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

    You might also like