US v. Kristen Doyle
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed under CJA [1000209169-2]. Originating case number: 2:12-cr-00039-RBS-TEM-1, 2:17-cv-00567-RBS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000269433]. Mailed to: Kristen Patrick Doyle. [17-7559]
Appeal: 17-7559
Doc: 9
Filed: 04/03/2018
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7559
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KRISTEN PATRICK DOYLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:12-cr-00039-RBS-TEM-1; 2:17cv-00567-RBS)
Submitted: March 29, 2018
Decided: April 3, 2018
Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kristen Patrick Doyle, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 17-7559
Doc: 9
Filed: 04/03/2018
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Kristen Patrick Doyle appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3006A (2012), and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Doyle, No. 2:12-cr-00039-RBS-TEM-1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 9, 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 process.
AFFIRMED
*
The district court construed Doyle’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as an 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion.
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?