Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 69 views

    United States v. Orrandy Goodwyn, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Orrandy Goodwyn's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. The district court had denied Goodwyn's motion for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Orrandy Goodwyn, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    69 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Orrandy Goodwyn's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. The district court had denied Goodwyn's motion for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-12-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7064

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Orrandy Goodwyn's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. The district court had denied Goodwyn's motion for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    69 views2 pages

    United States v. Orrandy Goodwyn, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Orrandy Goodwyn's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. The district court had denied Goodwyn's motion for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-7064

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    ORRANDY GOODWYN, a/k/a Randy, a/k/a White Boy, a/k/a Trash,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, District
    Judge. (3:96-cr-00041-JRS-8)

    Submitted:

    December 17, 2012

    Decided:

    December 28, 2012

    Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Orrandy Goodwyn, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Aber Brumberg, OFFICE


    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richard Daniel Cooke, Laura
    Colombell Marshall, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Orrandy
    denying,

    for

    Goodwyn
    want

    appeals

    of

    the

    district

    jurisdiction,

    courts

    his

    order

    motion

    for

    reconsideration of the district courts order denying his 18


    U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion.
    and find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed the record

    Accordingly, we affirm for the

    reasons stated by the district court.

    United States v. Goodwyn,

    No. 3:96-cr-00041-JRS-8 (E.D. Va. May 8, 2012).

    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

    You might also like