US v. Deryck Halley

Filing 920100126

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6798 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DERYCK LENNOX HALLEY, Defendant Appellant. No. 08-6851 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DERYCK LENNOX HALLEY, Defendant Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:89-cr-00115-jct-1) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Deryck Lennox Halley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In Appeal No. 08-6798, Deryck Lennox Halley appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006). In Appeal No. 08-6851, Halley appeals the district court's subsequently filed amended judgment denying the same motion. have been consolidated. The two appeals Because the district court's amended judgment supersedes the court's previous order denying Halley's 3582(c)(2) motion, we dismiss Halley's appeal of the previous order as moot. With respect to Halley's appeal of the district court's amended judgment, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons United States v. Halley, No. We dispense with contentions the court are and stated by the district court. 7:89-cr-00115-jct-1 (W.D. Va. May 13, 2008). oral argument because in the the facts and legal adequately presented materials before argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?