US v. Christian Philip Parker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00529-LO-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000145823]. Mailed to: Elizabeth Alexander; Christian Philip Parker; Katherine Elise Rumbaugh. [17-6775]

Appeal: 17-6775

Doc: 7

Filed: 08/29/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6775

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTIAN PHILIP PARKER, a/k/a Armani, a/k/a Super P, a/k/a Sup, a/k/a
King,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00529-LO-2; 16-cv-00700-LO)

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 29, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christian Philip Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Alexander, Mysti Dawn Degani,
Brian David Harrison, Scott Butler Nussbum, Katherine Rumbaugh, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Mary Katherine Barr Daly, Lawrence Joseph Leiser,
Karen Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6775

Doc: 7

Filed: 08/29/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Christian Philip Parker appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
reconsideration of the court’s prior order granting Parker’s motion for a sentence
reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), in which Parker sought a further
sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See
United States v. May, 855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017) (noting that prohibition on a
district court’s consideration of a motion to reconsider a § 3582 order is not jurisdictional
and is waived if not invoked by the government). Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order. 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