From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Outlaw

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Sep 30, 2013
540 F. App'x 228 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 13-6999

2013-09-30

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ARTHUR OUTLAW, a/k/a Ace, a/k/a Aceyon Rogers, Defendant - Appellant.

Arthur Alan Outlaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:00-cr-70114-JLK-RSB-1) Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Alan Outlaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Arthur Alan Outlaw appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Outlaw, No. 4:00-cr-70114-JLK-RSB-1 (W.D. Va. June 10, 2013). 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.

We further note that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is not the appropriate mechanism to assert the retroactive application of Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013).

AFFIRMED


Summaries of

United States v. Outlaw

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Sep 30, 2013
540 F. App'x 228 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Outlaw

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ARTHUR OUTLAW, a/k/a…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 30, 2013

Citations

540 F. App'x 228 (4th Cir. 2013)

Citing Cases

United States v. Locklear

As for Locklear's request for relief under Alleyne, section 3582(c) is not the appropriate mechanism to…

United States v. Anderson

Alleyne, cited by Defendant, has no application to a § 3582(c) motion: § 3582(c) "is not the appropriate…