US v. Nelson Zapata-Vicente

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:01-cr-00061-JRS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999873280]. Mailed to: Nelson Zapata-Vicente. [16-6439]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6439 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6439 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NELSON RAFAEL ZAPATA-VICENTE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior District Judge. (3:01-cr-00061-JRS-1) Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nelson Rafael Zapata-Vicente, Appellant Pro Mastandrea-Miller, Robert E. Trono, Assistant Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Se. United Angela States Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6439 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Nelson Rafael Zapata-Vicente appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction. reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm substantially * for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Zapata- Vicente, No. 3:01-cr-00061-JRS-1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 12, 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 * Although the district court mistakenly stated that ZapataVicente was held responsible for more than 450 kilograms of cocaine base, the record reveals that he was responsible for more than 450 kilograms of cocaine. Because the district court correctly concluded that Zapata-Vicente’s Guidelines range remains unchanged under Amendment 782, we affirm the denial of relief. 2

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?