US v. Yulian Carillo-Tamayo
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-cr-00563-MBS-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Yulian Carrillo-Tamayo. [17-7155]
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 South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (5:12-cr-00563-MBS-2)
Submitted: October 17, 2017
Decided: October 20, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yulian Carrillo-Tamayo, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale, Jane Barrett Taylor,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Yulian Carrillo-Tamayo (Tamayo) appeals from the district court’s order denying
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion seeking a sentence reduction under
Amendments 750, 759, and 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error in the district court’s rulings. The mandate rule
forecloses Tamayo’s challenge to the district court’s denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief under
Amendment 782. See Doe v. Chao, 511 F.3d 461, 464-65 (4th Cir. 2007) (discussing the
rule). We therefore affirm this ruling. We also affirm the district court’s denial of
§ 3582(c)(2) relief under Amendments 750 and 759 for the reasons stated by that court.
United States v. Carrillo-Tamayo, No. 5:12-cr-00563-MBS-2 (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 2017).
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
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?