US v. Shawn Adamson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:11-cr-00088-RGD-FBS-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999829882]. Mailed to: Shawn Adamson FCI ELKTON FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 10 Lisbon, OH 44432. [16-6030]

Appeal: 16-6030

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6030

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAWN ADAMSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:11-cr-00088-RGD-FBS-3)

Submitted:

May 18, 2016

Decided:

May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawn Adamson, Appellant Pro Se.
Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant
United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6030

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Shawn Adamson filed a self-styled “Request for reduction of
sentence by appeal” that the district court construed as an appeal
of its order granting Adamson a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582 (2012) and Guidelines Amendment 782. *
record and find no reversible error.

We have reviewed the

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

United States v.

Adamson, No. 4:11-cr-00088-RGD-FBS-3 (E.D. Va. entered Nov. 10,
2014 and effective Nov. 1, 2015).

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

*Because

the document was construed as a notice of appeal of
the district court’s order entered November 10, 2014, it is
untimely. We decline to dismiss the appeal, however, because the
Government has not moved to dismiss the appeal, and the appeal
period in criminal cases is not jurisdictional. United States v.
Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 684-86 (4th Cir. 2009).
2