US v. Michael Haymond

Filing 920090304


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6902 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL PAUL HAYMOND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00013-JPB-3) Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 4, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Joseph Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Paul Haymond appeals from the district court's order granting a two-level reduction sentence pursuant reduction to 18 and denying a further (2006). sentence U.S.C. 3582(c) We have reviewed the record and the district court's Accordingly, we affirm See United States v. We order and find no abuse of discretion. on the reasoning of the district court. Haymond, No. 3:05-cr-00013-JPB-3 (N.D.W. Va., May 28, 2008). note Haymond was not entitled to a resentencing hearing or a sentence below the amended guideline range. See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir. 2009) ("When a sentence is within the guidelines applicable at the time of the original hearing, sentencing, a district in an 18 is U.S.C. not 3582(c) resentencing to reduce a We judge authorized defendant's sentence below the amended guideline range."). deny Haymond's motion for appointment of counsel and 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

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?