US v. Carlyle Alvarez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998835789-2]. Originating case number: 3:05-cr-00075-JPB-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998906905]. Mailed to: Carlyle Alvarez. [12-6453]

Appeal: 12-6453

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/01/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6453

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLYLE LAVAR ALVAREZ, a/k/a Chico,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00075-JPB-2)

Submitted:

July 26, 2012

Decided:

August 1, 2012

Before DUNCAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlyle
Lavar
Alvarez,
Appellant
Pro
Se.
Paul
Camilletti, Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United
Attorneys, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Thomas
States

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6453

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/01/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Carlyle

Alvarez

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence
reduction and motion for reconsideration.
record and find no reversible error.

We have reviewed the

Accordingly, we affirm the

denial of Alvarez’s § 3582(c)(2) motion for the reasons stated
by the district court.

United States v. Alvarez, No. 3:05–cr–

00075–JPB–2 (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 10, 2012).

With respect to the

district court’s subsequent order, because the district court
lacked the authority to consider Alvarez’s motion to reconsider,
see United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235–36 (4th Cir.
2010), we affirm the district court’s denial of relief.

We

further deny Alvarez’s motion for the appointment of counsel.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2