US v. Johney Freeman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:88-cr-00076-AWA-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999646755].. [15-6764, 15-6977]

Appeal: 15-6764

Doc: 19

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6764

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHNEY FREEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-6977

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHNEY FREEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:88-cr-00076-AWA-2)

Submitted:

August 20, 2015

Decided:

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

August 25, 2015

Appeal: 15-6764

Doc: 19

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johney Freeman, Appellant Pro Se.
Stephen Westley Haynie,
Assistant United States Attorney, V. Kathleen Dougherty, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6764

Doc: 19

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Johney Freeman appeals the district court’s orders denying
his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) (2012), ruling on his two motions to reconsider, and
denying his motion to unseal documents.
record and find no reversible error.

We have reviewed the

United States v. Freeman,

No. 2:88-cr-00076-AWA-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 22, 2015; May 22, 2015;
June 5, 2015; June 8, 2015); see United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d
301,

304-05

(4th

Cir.

2013)

(reviewing

the

disposition

of

a

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for an abuse of discretion); United States
v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that
the district court does not have authority to reconsider a prior
order for a § 3582(c)(2) motion).
district

court’s

denial

of

relief.

Accordingly, we affirm the
We

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.

AFFIRMED

3