US v. David Zebrowski

Filing 920090828

Download PDF
CORRECTED OPINION UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8368 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID ZEBROWSKI, a/k/a Dog, a/k/a David Stewart, a/k/a Lewis Brady, a/k/a Mad Dog, a/k/a Eric Conrad Smith, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:96-cr-00041-JRS-3) Submitted: February 26, 2009 Corrected Opinion Filed: Decided: March 30, 2009 August 28, 2009 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Zebrowski, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Appellee. Daniel Cooke, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Zebrowski appeals a district court order granting his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) (2006). Under the amendments to the Guidelines, Zebrowski's total offense level was 39. His amended range of On October imprisonment was 292 to 365 months' imprisonment. 15, 2008, the court granted Zebrowski's motion and lowered his original 360-month sentence to 336 months' imprisonment. In response, Zebrowski filed a timely notice of appeal and a motion for reconsideration. court granted the While the appeal was pending, the district motion for reconsideration and lowered Zebrowski's sentence to 294 months' imprisonment. Because the court granted the motion for reconsideration and ordered a new sentence, the appeal from the October 15, 2008 order is moot. Accordingly, dispense with oral we dismiss the appeal the as moot. and We legal argument because facts contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?