United States v. Spencer Peters
576 F. App'x 209
4th Cir.
2014
Check Treatment
Docket

Adrian D. MURRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary POLLARD; Danielle M. Carman; Toni Banks; Theodore S. Royster, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-6201

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Submitted: June 19, 2014. Decided: June 23, 2014.

Adrian D. Murray, Appellant Pro Se. Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Adrian D. Murray appeals the district court’s order dismissing after a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012) review his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint, and its order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration and motion to amend the complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. . 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.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Spencer PETERS, a/k/a Smoke, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-6023

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Submitted: June 19, 2014. Decided: June 23, 2014.

Spencer Peters, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Spencer Peters appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We need not address whether the district court erred in finding Peters ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court alternatively held that, even if Peters were eligible, it would decline to grant such a reduction in view of “the nature and extent of the offense conduct and the safety risk that the defendant poses to the public.” Peters does not challenge this aspect of the district court’s decision on appeal, and we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the requested relief. See (“Whether to reduce a sentence and to what extent is a matter within the court’s discretion.“) 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.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert POPE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-6261

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Submitted: June 19, 2014. Decided: June 23, 2014.

Robert Pope, Appellant Pro Se. Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Pope seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prison-