US v. Monquay William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:10-cr-00047-RBS-TEM-5 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999627182]. Mailed to: Monquay Williams FCI MCDOWELL FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 1009 Welch, WV 24801 Valerie S. Muth. [15-6711]

Appeal: 15-6711

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6711

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MONQUAY WILLIAMS, a/k/a Quay,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (4:10-cr-00047-RBS-TEM-5)

Submitted:

July 21, 2015

Decided:

July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Monquay Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II,
Eric Matthew Hurt, Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Valerie S. Muth, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6711

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Monquay Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order
granting the Government’s motion to reduce his sentence.

Under 18

U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2012), we “lack jurisdiction to review the extent
of the district court’s downward departure.”

United States v.

Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995); see United States v. Davis,
679 F.3d 190, 193-94 (4th Cir. 2012) (explaining that, although
the court may entertain “challenges to the lawfulness of the method
used by the district court in making its sentencing decision,”
this

court

discretionary

lacks

“jurisdiction

sentencing

to

decision”).

review

any

Because

part

the

sole

of

a

issue

raised on appeal attacks the extent of the reduction awarded by
the

district

jurisdiction.

court,

we

dismiss

this

appeal

for

lack

of

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

2