US v. William Wilson

Filing 920100505

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8087 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM DAVID WILSON, a/k/a Pudgie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (3:94-cr-00065-BO-12) Submitted: March 25, 2010 Decided: May 5, 2010 Before MICHAEL, * MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William David Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Judge Michael was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 46(d). * Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: William David Wilson appeals a district court order denying his motion for a sentence reduction filed under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) (2006). We affirm. The legal interpretations of the Sentencing Guidelines and the amendments are reviewed de novo. reviewed for clear error. Factual findings are See United States v. Turner, 59 F.3d This court reviews the denial of a 481, 483-84 (4th Cir. 1995). motion for a reduction in the sentence under 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. (4th Cir. 2004). Our review of the sentencing transcript shows that the district court did not err when it denied Wilson's 3582(c) motion on the basis that he was held accountable for 11.7 United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 kilograms of crack cocaine. court's order. Accordingly, we affirm the district 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 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?