Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    United States v. Arturo Baza, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of Arturo Navarro Baza's motion for a sentence reduction. Baza appealed the denial of his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion, which allows for sentence reductions based on retroactive guideline amendments. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision to deny the motion. The appellate court adopted the district court's reasons for the denial.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Arturo Baza, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of Arturo Navarro Baza's motion for a sentence reduction. Baza appealed the denial of his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion, which allows for sentence reductions based on retroactive guideline amendments. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision to deny the motion. The appellate court adopted the district court's reasons for the denial.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-03-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7644

    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 a district court's denial of Arturo Navarro Baza's motion for a sentence reduction. Baza appealed the denial of his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion, which allows for sentence reductions based on retroactive guideline amendments. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision to deny the motion. The appellate court adopted the district court's reasons for the denial.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Arturo Baza, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of Arturo Navarro Baza's motion for a sentence reduction. Baza appealed the denial of his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion, which allows for sentence reductions based on retroactive guideline amendments. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision to deny the motion. The appellate court adopted the district court's reasons for the denial.

    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. 15-7644

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ARTURO NAVARRO BAZA,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
    Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (7:06-cr-00116-BO-1)

    Submitted:

    February 25, 2016

    Decided:

    March 18, 2016

    Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Arturo Navarro Baza, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant


    United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Arturo

    Navarro

    Baza

    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. See United States v. Baza, No. 7:06-cr-00116-BO-1 (E.D.N.C.
    Oct. 5, 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