Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Michael Dyson, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    Michael Dyson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 750 to the sentencing guidelines. The 4th Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's stated reasons for denying the motion. The 4th Circuit also decided that oral argument was not necessary because the issues and legal arguments were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-01-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7647

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Michael Dyson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 750 to the sentencing guidelines. The 4th Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's stated reasons for denying the motion. The 4th Circuit also decided that oral argument was not necessary because the issues and legal arguments were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Michael Dyson, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Michael Dyson appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 750 to the sentencing guidelines. The 4th Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court's stated reasons for denying the motion. The 4th Circuit also decided that oral argument was not necessary because the issues and legal arguments were adequately addressed in the court 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7647

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MICHAEL CASSANOVA DYSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
    Frederick P. Stamp,
    Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00021-FPS-JES-6)

    Submitted:

    January 14, 2016

    Decided:

    January 20, 2016

    Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael Cassanova Dyson, Appellant Pro Se.


    John Castle Parr,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Cassanova Dyson appeals the district courts order
    denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
    reduction

    pursuant

    to

    Amendment

    Guidelines Manual (2011).


    no reversible error.

    contentions

    are

    oral

    the

    U.S.

    Sentencing

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

    5:09cr00021FPS-JES-6
    with

    to

    We have reviewed the record and find

    stated by the district court.

    dispense

    750

    See United States v. Dyson, No.

    (N.D.W.

    argument

    adequately

    Va.

    Sept.

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    29,

    2015).

    facts

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like