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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-7559 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/03/2018 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7559 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KRISTEN PATRICK DOYLE, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?