US v. William Cro
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998878164]. [12-6365, 12-6372]
Appeal: 12-6365
Doc: 7
Filed: 06/19/2012
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6365
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-6372
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1)
Submitted:
June 14, 2012
Decided: June 19, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Appeal: 12-6365
Doc: 7
Filed: 06/19/2012
Pg: 2 of 3
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Terrence Cross, Appellant
Tayman,
Assistant
United
States
Virginia, for Appellee.
Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro
Attorney,
Newport
News,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 12-6365
Doc: 7
Filed: 06/19/2012
Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
William
orders
denying
Terrence
have
We
record
of
denial
and
U.S.C.
18
3582(c)(2)
find
no
(2006)
court’s
We
the
§
district
motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a).
affirm
U.S.C.
the
and
the
18
appeals
motion
reviewed
his
Cross
reversible
§ 3582(c)(2)
reasons stated by the district court.
error.
relief
for
the
United States v. Cross,
No. 2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 19, 2010).
Because the
district court lacked the authority to consider Cross’s motion
for reconsideration, see United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233,
235-36 (4th Cir. 2010), we affirm the district court’s order
denying the motion.
facts
and
materials
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
the
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
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?