US v. Kenneth Montgomery, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:98-cr-00289-REP-RCY-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999829892]. Mailed to: K Montgomery. [16-6262]

Appeal: 16-6262

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6262

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH M. MONTGOMERY, JR., a/k/a Richard E. Main,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:98-cr-00289-REP-RCY-1)

Submitted:

May 18, 2016

Decided:

May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth M. Montgomery, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Richard Daniel
Cooke, David Thomas Maguire, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6262

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Kenneth

M.

Montgomery,

Jr.,

appeals

from

the

district

court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion
to reduce his sentence.

A district court’s decision on whether

to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of
discretion,
authority

while

under

its

that

conclusion
provision

is

on

the

scope

reviewed

de

of

its

novo.

States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).

legal
United

Our review

of the record reveals that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Montgomery relief.
Smalls, 720 F.3d 193 (4th Cir. 2013).
the district court’s order.

See United States v.
Accordingly, we affirm

United States v. Montgomery, No.

3:98-cr-00289-REP-RCY-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 5, 2016).

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

2