Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Gregg Braxton, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of Gregg Braxton's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Braxton had appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling for the same reasons provided in the lower court's decision. The appellate panel dispensed with oral arguments, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials submitted.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-05-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7964

    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    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of Gregg Braxton's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Braxton had appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling for the same reasons provided in the lower court's decision. The appellate panel dispensed with oral arguments, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials submitted.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Gregg Braxton, 4th Cir. (2016)

    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    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of Gregg Braxton's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Braxton had appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling for the same reasons provided in the lower court's decision. The appellate panel dispensed with oral arguments, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials submitted.

    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. 15-7964

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    GREGG BRAXTON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (3:08-cr-00187-HEH-MHL-1)

    Submitted:

    May 18, 2016

    Decided:

    May 20, 2016

    Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Gregg Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant


    United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Gregg
    denying

    Braxton

    his

    Amendment

    18

    782.

    reversible error.
    by

    the

    district

    appeals

    U.S.C.
    We

    from

    the

    3582(c)(2)

    have

    reviewed

    district
    (2012)
    the

    courts

    motion

    record

    and

    order

    based

    on

    find

    no

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated


    court.

    United

    States

    v.

    Braxton,

    3:08-cr-00187-HEH-MHL-1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 9, 2015).

    No.

    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