Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Sorto, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views2 pages
    Juan Francisco Sorto appealed the district court's denial of his motion to modify his sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling that Sorto was not entitled to a sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) for the reasons stated by the lower court. The appeals court denied Sorto's request for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately represented in the materials provided.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-07-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6831

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Juan Francisco Sorto appealed the district court's denial of his motion to modify his sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling that Sorto was not entitled to a sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) for the reasons stated by the lower court. The appeals court denied Sorto's request for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately represented in the materials provided.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Sorto, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Juan Francisco Sorto appealed the district court's denial of his motion to modify his sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling that Sorto was not entitled to a sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) for the reasons stated by the lower court. The appeals court denied Sorto's request for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately represented in the materials provided.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-6831

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JUAN FRANCISCO SORTO,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (1:96-cr-00251-JCC-2)

    Submitted:

    July 22, 2008

    Decided:

    July 28, 2008

    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Juan Francisco Sorto, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Leo Fahey, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Juan Francisco Sorto appeals the district courts order
    denying his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
    3582(c)(2)(2000).
    reversible

    error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no


    Accordingly,

    we

    deny

    Sortos

    motion

    for

    appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the


    district court. See United States v. Sorto, No. 1:96-cr-00251-JCC2 (E.D. Va. May 7, 2008).

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like