No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Koa Mack
v.
Koa Mack
12-6052.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Mar 20, 2012.
Unpublished opinion
Unpublished
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6052
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KOA DANNETTE MACK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:07-cr-00085-GEC-1)
Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Koa Dannette Mack, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6052
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KOA DANNETTE MACK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:07-cr-00085-GEC-1)
Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Koa Dannette Mack, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Koa Dannette Mack appeals the district court’s order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendments 706 and 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) (2010). Because neither amendment has the effect of lowering Mack’s applicable Guidelines range, we affirm the district court’s order. See USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED