US v. Kunta Redd
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint counsel [999432296-2] Originating case number: 7:08-cr-00043-D-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. . Mailed to: Kunta Redd. [14-7209]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
KUNTA KENTA REDD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (7:08-cr-00043-D-1)
November 12, 2015
December 23, 2015
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kunta Kenta Redd, Appellant Pro Se.
Michael Gordon James,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Kunta Kenta Redd appeals from the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion to reduce his
A district court’s decision on whether to reduce a
sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion,
while its conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under
that provision is reviewed de novo.
United States v. Munn,
595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).
Our review of the record reveals that the district court
States v. Redd, No. 7:08-cr-00043-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 2014).
We deny Redd’s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
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?