The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
03-7093•United States of America v. Lorenzo Adderly, a/k/a Kendrick A. McKenzie, a/k/a Son-Son
03-7093Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 31, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7093
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LORENZO ADDERLY, a/k/a Kendrick A. McKenzie,
a/k/a Son-Son,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-95-74)
Submitted: October 23, 2003 Decided: October 31, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lorenzo Adderly, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Adderly appeals from the district court’s order
denying his motion for a downward departure in his sentence.
Because Adderly had no pending challenge to his sentence and no
court had ordered his resentencing, we affirm the district court’s
determination that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion for
a downward departure. 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.