Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    United States v. Rodney Wilson, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rodney Kashawn Wilson appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Rodney Wilson, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    18 views2 pages
    Rodney Kashawn Wilson appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-01-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7441

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Rodney Kashawn Wilson appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Rodney Wilson, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rodney Kashawn Wilson appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding the facts and legal arguments were adequately explained in the case materials.

    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. 15-7441

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    RODNEY KASHAWN WILSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (2:09-cr-00164-RAJ-FBS-1)

    Submitted:

    January 14, 2016

    Decided:

    January 20, 2016

    Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Rodney Kashawn Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.


    Damian J. Hansen,
    Special Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen Westley
    Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Rodney Kashawn Wilson appeals the district courts order
    denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
    reduction pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782.
    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    United

    States

    v.

    Wilson,

    No.

    2:09-cr-00164-RAJ-FBS-1

    (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 28 & entered Aug. 31, 2015).

    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