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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 12-6365 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/19/2012 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6365 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS, Defendant -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 Appeal: 12-6365 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/19/2012 Pg: 2 of 3 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Laura Pellatiro Attorney, Newport News, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 12-6365 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/19/2012 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: William orders denying Terrence have We record of denial and U.S.C.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?