US v. Lewis Cornell


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:00-cr-00204-CCE-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000027972]. Mailed to: Lewis Cornell. [16-7532]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7532 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7532 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LEWIS THOMAS CORNELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:00-cr-00204-CCE-3) Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 22, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lewis Thomas Cornell, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7532 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Lewis Thomas Cornell appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of his sentence based Guidelines Manual. reversible error. order. on an amendment to the U.S. Sentencing We have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 234 (4th Cir. 2010) (a district court has no authority to reconsider its decision on a sentence reduction motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)). 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

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?