Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    United States v. Ellus Larous, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ellus Larous appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, dispensing with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decision.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Ellus Larous, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Ellus Larous appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, dispensing with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-04-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7794

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ellus Larous appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, dispensing with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decision.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Ellus Larous, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ellus Larous appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, dispensing with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decision.

    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. 15-7794

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    ELLUS LAROUS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (5:98-cr-00007-F-4)

    Submitted:

    March 17, 2016

    Decided:

    April 4, 2016

    Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ellus Larous, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF


    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Ellus Larous appeals the district courts order denying his
    18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence.
    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    United States v. Larous, No. 5:98-cr-00007-F-4 (E.D.N.C.

    June 23, 2015).


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the


    contentions

    are

    adequately

    this

    and

    argument

    court

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like