Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Carlyle Alvarez, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Carlyle Alvarez appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's denial of Alvarez's motion. The appellate court also affirmed the district court's subsequent denial of Alvarez's motion to reconsider, as the district court lacked authority to consider such a motion. The appellate court denied Alvarez's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-08-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6453

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Carlyle Alvarez appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's denial of Alvarez's motion. The appellate court also affirmed the district court's subsequent denial of Alvarez's motion to reconsider, as the district court lacked authority to consider such a motion. The appellate court denied Alvarez's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Carlyle Alvarez, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Carlyle Alvarez appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's denial of Alvarez's motion. The appellate court also affirmed the district court's subsequent denial of Alvarez's motion to reconsider, as the district court lacked authority to consider such a motion. The appellate court denied Alvarez's motion for appointment of counsel.

    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. 12-6453

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CARLYLE LAVAR ALVAREZ, a/k/a Chico,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
    Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00075-JPB-2)

    Submitted:

    July 26, 2012

    Decided:

    August 1, 2012

    Before DUNCAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Carlyle
    Lavar
    Alvarez,
    Appellant
    Pro
    Se.
    Paul
    Camilletti, Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United
    Attorneys, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

    Thomas
    States

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Carlyle

    Alvarez

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    orders

    denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence


    reduction and motion for reconsideration.
    record and find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed the

    Accordingly, we affirm the

    denial of Alvarezs 3582(c)(2) motion for the reasons stated


    by the district court.

    United States v. Alvarez, No. 3:05cr

    00075JPB2 (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 10, 2012).

    With respect to the

    district courts subsequent order, because the district court


    lacked the authority to consider Alvarezs motion to reconsider,
    see United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 23536 (4th Cir.
    2010), we affirm the district courts denial of relief.

    We

    further deny Alvarezs motion for the appointment of counsel.


    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