US v. Christian Philip Parker
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00529-LO-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Elizabeth Alexander; Christian Philip Parker; Katherine Elise Rumbaugh. [17-6775]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
CHRISTIAN PHILIP PARKER, a/k/a Armani, a/k/a Super P, a/k/a Sup, a/k/a
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
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.
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?