Case ID: f-appx_506/html/0196-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donzel Fredrickus STINSON, a/k/a Shack, a/k/a Shaq, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-7654.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 10, 2013.
    Decided: Jan. 23, 2013.
    Donzel Fredrickus Stinson, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Donzel Fredrickus Stinson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction in his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Stinson, No. 5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-20 (Aug. 23, 2012). We deny Stinson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.