United States of America v. William Terrence Cross

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UNPUBLISHED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.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
William Terrence Cross appeals the district court’s
orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion and
motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We
affirm the denial of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) relief for the
reasons stated by the district court. 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. 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
* In our previous opinion, the date of the district court’s
order was incorrect. The opinion after rehearing corrects the
date.

-- 3 of 3 --