US v. Edward Richards, III


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00385-CCB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000027876]. Mailed to: Edward Kermit Richards III. [16-7508]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7508 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7508 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWARD KERMIT RICHARDS, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00385-CCB-1) Submitted: February 16, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Decided: DUNCAN, February 22, 2017 Circuit Judge, and Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Kermit Richards, III, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Sutherland Clark, Seema Mittal, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, Christopher John Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7508 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Edward Kermit Richards, III, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendments 782 and 794 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. record and find no reversible error. Guidelines Amendments under which We have reviewed the Specifically, both of the Richards sought a sentence reduction were in effect at the time of Richards’ February 2016 sentencing. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Richards, No. 1:14–cr–00385–CCB–1 (D. Md. Oct. 21, 2016). facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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?