US v. Timothy Hoard

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:06-cr-00838-DCN-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999588623]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-6354]

Appeal: 15-6354

Doc: 8

Filed: 05/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6354

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY HOARD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:06-cr-00838-DCN-1)

Submitted:

May 19, 2015

Decided: May 22, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Hoard, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6354

Doc: 8

Filed: 05/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Timothy Hoard appeals the district court’s order denying
his

motion

to

reduce

his

sentence.

Hoard

charges

that

the

district court erred by imposing a consecutive sentence because
when his prior state sentence was imposed, the state court judge
ordered that it be served concurrently with his future federal
sentence.

After

reviewing

the

record,

we

find

without jurisdiction to consider Hoard’s appeal.

that

we

are

See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742(a) (2012) (allowing appeals only from sentences “imposed
in violation of law”); see also United States v. Davis, 679 F.3d
190, 194 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding that § 3742(a)(1) “does not
give

this

Court

discretionary
Hoard’s
facts

jurisdiction

sentencing

appeal.

and

materials

legal
before

We

to

decision”).

dispense

with

review

any

Accordingly,
oral

argument

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

part
we

not

a

dismiss

because

presented

would

of

the

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

2