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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?