Court Opinion

ID: 9404752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-24 21:00:35.92874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:16.850146
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7320      Doc: 7        Filed: 06/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7320

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        KIERON MATTHEW WILLIAMS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00596-GLR-1)

        Submitted: May 31, 2023                                             Decided: June 23, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kieron Matthew Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7320      Doc: 7         Filed: 06/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kieron Matthew Williams appeals the district court’s order denying as moot his

        motion to compel the United States Probation Office to amend his presentence report (PSR)

        to correct a mathematical error. The record reflects that, in accordance with a previous

        order of the district court, the probation officer amended Williams’ PSR to correct the

        identified error on July 16, 2019. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United

        States v. Williams, No. 1:14-cr-00596-GLR-1 (D. Md., Oct. 19, 2022). We deny as moot

        Williams’ motion for summary disposition, and 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

                                                     2