US v. William Cross, No. 12-6365 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 19, 2012.
Download PDF
ON REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6365 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-6372 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: October 18, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Terrence Cross, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: William orders denying Terrence have We record of denial and U.S.C. 18 3582(c)(2) find no (2006) court s We the § district motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). affirm U.S.C. the and the 18 appeals motion reviewed his Cross reversible § 3582(c)(2) reasons stated by the district court. error. relief for the United States v. Cross, No. 2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 19, 2012). * Because the district court lacked the authority to consider Cross s motion for reconsideration, see United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010), we affirm the district court s order denying the motion. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * In our previous opinion, the date of the district court s order was incorrect. The opinion after rehearing corrects the date. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
