US v. Ahmad Hobbs

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999516458-2] Originating case number: 4:08-cr-00024-RBS-FBS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999704644]. Mailed to: Ahmad Hobbs. [15-6107]

Appeal: 15-6107

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6107

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AHMAD RASHAD HOBBS, a/k/a Sean Hicks,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-00024-RBS-FBS-1)

Submitted:

November 19, 2015

Decided:

November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ahmad Rashad Hobbs, Appellant Pro Se.
Howard Jacob Zlotnick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6107

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ahmad
denying

Rashad

Hobbs’

Hobbs

18

appeals

U.S.C.

the

district

§ 3582(c)(2)

court’s

(2012)

motion

orders
for

a

sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (2014), and denying reconsideration of that
order.

A

district

court’s

decision

on

whether

to

reduce

a

sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion,
while its conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under
that provision is reviewed de novo.

United States v. Munn, 595

F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).
Our review of the record reveals that the district court
did

not

abuse

motion.

its

discretion

in

denying

Hobbs’

§ 3582(c)(2)

The court plainly understood its authority to reduce

Hobbs’ sentence pursuant to Amendment 782, see United States v.
Stewart,

595

F.3d

§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(B),
facts

and

197,

p.s.,

circumstances

abundantly familiar.

203

(4th

but

declined

of

Hobbs’

to

case,

Cir.

2010);

do

based

on

the

which

it

was

so

with

USSG

See United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193,

196-97 (4th Cir. 2013).

Moreover, despite Hobbs’ claim to the

contrary, it is well settled that the district court is not
required

to

provide

individualized

reasoning

when

deciding

a

§ 3582(c)(2) motion, see United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724,
728-29 (4th Cir. 2000), and the record does not support Hobbs’
argument

that

the

court

failed
2

to

consider

the

relevant

18

Appeal: 15-6107

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors.
97.

See Smalls, 720 F.3d at 195-

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Hobbs’ § 3582(c)(2)

motion for the reasons stated by the district court.

See United

States

Va.

v.

Hobbs,

No.

4:08–cr–00024–RBS-FBS-1

(E.D.

filed

Nov. 21, 2014; entered Nov. 25, 2014).
We also conclude that the district court lacked authority
to

entertain

States

v.

Hobbs’

Goodwyn,

motion
596

for

F.3d

reconsideration.

233,

235–36

(4th

See

United

Cir.

2010).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying that
motion.

Finally, we deny Hobbs’ motion for the appointment of

counsel.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3