Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Billy McCullers, JR., 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    Billy McCullers appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's denial for the reasons stated. While granting McCullers' motion to expand the record, the appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of McCullers' motion to reduce his sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-02-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7581

    Original Title

    United States v. Billy McCullers, Jr., 4th Cir. (2016)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Billy McCullers appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's denial for the reasons stated. While granting McCullers' motion to expand the record, the appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of McCullers' motion to reduce his sentence.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Billy McCullers, JR., 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Billy McCullers appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's denial for the reasons stated. While granting McCullers' motion to expand the record, the appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of McCullers' motion to reduce his sentence.

    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. 15-7581

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    BILLY R. MCCULLERS, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Rebecca Beach Smith,
    Chief District Judge. (4:07-cr-00049-RBS-JEB-1)

    Submitted:

    February 23, 2016

    Decided:

    February 26, 2016

    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Billy R. McCullers, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Elaine


    OBoyle, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia;
    Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United
    States Attorneys, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Billy R. McCullers, Jr., appeals the district courts order
    denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
    reduction.
    error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.

    United States v. McCullers, No. 4:07-cr-00049-

    RBS-JEB-1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 22, 2015).


    for expansion of the record.

    We grant McCullers motion

    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