Narrative Opinion Summary
Ryan O’Neil Lansdowne's appeal for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) has been reviewed. The district court's order denying his motion has been affirmed, with no reversible error found. The affirmance is based on the reasoning provided by the district court in the case United States v. Lansdowne, No. 1:00-cr-00185-TSE-l (E.D. Va. filed July 31, 2013, entered Aug. 1, 2013). Additionally, Lansdowne's motion to supplement his informal brief is denied, and oral argument has been deemed unnecessary as the pertinent facts and legal issues are sufficiently covered in the submitted materials. The final decision is to affirm the lower court's ruling.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Motion to Supplement Informal Briefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Lansdowne's request to supplement his informal brief was denied, indicating the court's reliance on the existing record without additional input.
Reasoning: Additionally, Lansdowne's motion to supplement his informal brief is denied.
Necessity of Oral Argumentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary because the submitted materials sufficiently addressed the relevant facts and legal issues.
Reasoning: Oral argument has been deemed unnecessary as the pertinent facts and legal issues are sufficiently covered in the submitted materials.
Sentence Reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's decision to deny Ryan O’Neil Lansdowne's motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) was affirmed due to lack of reversible error.
Reasoning: Ryan O’Neil Lansdowne's appeal for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) has been reviewed. The district court's order denying his motion has been affirmed, with no reversible error found.