U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2013

United States v. Michael Harriot

United States v. Michael Harriot
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided September 4, 2013

United States v. Michael Harriot

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MICHAEL OWEN HARRIOT, a/k/a Lanky, a/k/a Donovan Smith, a/k/a Richard Onyett, a/k/a Bernard Barber, a/k/a James D.

Smith, a/k/a Michael Smith, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-00341-SB-3)

Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Owen Harriot, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Michael Harriot appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). The district court denied the motion because the Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 750 did not result in a change to the Guidelines range. We have reviewed the record and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court and argument will not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.