US v. Hayward Nichols

Filing 920090824

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6408 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HAYWARD JEROME NICHOLS, a/k/a Boobie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:02-cr-00037-RLV-8) Submitted: August 5, 2009 Decided: August 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reita P. Pendry, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hayward Jerome Nichols appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006), in which he sought the benefit of Amendment 706 of the sentencing guidelines. The record reflects that, at sentencing, the district court granted the Government's motion for downward departure based on Nichol's substantial assistance. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 5K1.1 (2000). sentenced Nichols to 210 months in prisonwell The court below the mandatory life sentence to which he was subject and below his advisory Guidelines range of 292-365 months. We recently held that "in reducing a sentence under . . . 5K1.1, the sentencing court does not apply a Guidelines sentencing range." (4th Cir. 2009). United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 235 Therefore, Nichols was not "sentenced based on a sentencing range that has . . . been lowered," 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), and his sentence is not subject to further reduction under 3582(c)(2). See id. We dispense Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief. 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?