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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [998962205]. Mailed to: William Cross. [12-6365, 12-6372]

Appeal: 12-6365

Doc: 14

Filed: 10/18/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

ON REHEARING
UNPUBLISHED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:

October 18, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 12-6365

Doc: 14

Filed: 10/18/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Terrence Cross, Appellant Pro Se.
Laura Pellatiro
Tayman,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Newport
News,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-6365

Doc: 14

Filed: 10/18/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

Terrence

appeals

PER CURIAM:
William
orders

denying

We

have

We

the

§

record
of

denial

and

U.S.C.

18

3582(c)(2)

find

no

(2006)

court’s

motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a).

affirm

U.S.C.

district

and

the

18

the

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, 2012). *

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

*

In our previous opinion, the date of the district court’s
order was incorrect. The opinion after rehearing corrects the
date.

3