US v. Antonio McNeely
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000080073-2] Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00114-CCB-21 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Antonio McNeely. [17-6512]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00114-CCB-21)
Submitted: August 24, 2017
Decided: August 29, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio McNeely, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin M. Block, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael
Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Christopher M. Mason, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Antonio McNeely appeals the district court’s order granting reconsideration of the
court’s prior order denying McNeely’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion and
reducing McNeely’s sentence pursuant to Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual. *
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
See United States v. McNeely,
No. 1:11-cr-00114-CCB-21 (D. Md. Mar. 23, 2017). We deny McNeely’s motion for the
appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
Although the district court ultimately granted McNeely’s § 3582(c)(2) motion,
the reduction granted by the court did not reduce McNeely’s sentence to the full extent he
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?