From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Lansdowne

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Dec 10, 2013
547 F. App'x 362 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 13-7314

12-10-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RYAN O'NEIL LANSDOWNE, Defendant - Appellant.

Ryan O'Neil Lansdowne, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Kimberly Riley Pedersen, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, Senior District Judge. (1:00-cr-00185-TSE-1) Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ryan O'Neil Lansdowne, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Kimberly Riley Pedersen, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Ryan O'Neil Lansdowne seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the district court's order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Lansdowne, No. 1:00-cr-00185-TSE-1 (E.D. Va. filed July 31, 2013 & entered Aug. 1, 2013). We deny Lansdowne's pending motion for leave to supplement his informal brief. 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


Summaries of

United States v. Lansdowne

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Dec 10, 2013
547 F. App'x 362 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Lansdowne

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RYAN O'NEIL LANSDOWNE…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Dec 10, 2013

Citations

547 F. App'x 362 (4th Cir. 2013)