Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    United States v. Lorenzo Stephens, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Lorenzo Deshon Stephens' motion to reduce his sentence. The district court had denied the motion based on concerns for public safety. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and agreed that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the sentence reduction given the basis of protecting public safety.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Lorenzo Stephens, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Lorenzo Deshon Stephens' motion to reduce his sentence. The district court had denied the motion based on concerns for public safety. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and agreed that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the sentence reduction given the basis of protecting public safety.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-08-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-6747

    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 Lorenzo Deshon Stephens' motion to reduce his sentence. The district court had denied the motion based on concerns for public safety. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and agreed that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the sentence reduction given the basis of protecting public safety.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Lorenzo Stephens, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Lorenzo Deshon Stephens' motion to reduce his sentence. The district court had denied the motion based on concerns for public safety. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and agreed that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the sentence reduction given the basis of protecting public safety.

    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. 13-6747

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LORENZO DESHON STEPHENS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (3:06-cr-00281-HEH-1)

    Submitted:

    August 22, 2013

    Decided:

    August 27, 2013

    Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Lorenzo Deshon Stephens, Appellant Pro Se.


    Roderick Charles
    Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Lorenzo Deshon Stephens appeals the district courts
    order

    denying

    his

    motion

    for

    U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006).


    us

    that

    the

    district

    court

    reduction

    of

    sentence

    under

    18

    Our review of the record convinces


    did

    not

    abuse

    its

    discretion

    in

    denying Stephens a reduction of sentence on the basis of public


    safety.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.

    United States v. Stephens, No. 3:06-cr-00281-

    HEH-1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2013).

    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