US v. Shawn Adamson
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:11-cr-00088-RGD-FBS-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Shawn Adamson FCI ELKTON FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 10 Lisbon, OH 44432. [16-6030]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
May 18, 2016
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
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
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).
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?