US v. Tyrone Hall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00773-JFM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999729611]. Mailed to: Tyrone Hall FMC ROCHESTER FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER P. O. Box 4000 Rochester, MN 55903-4000. [15-7140]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7140 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7140 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TYRONE HALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00773-JFM-1) Submitted: December 21, 2015 Decided: January 5, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Albert David Copperthite, Barbara Slaymaker Sale, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-7140 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Tyrone Hall appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction. Hall sought a reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the offense levels applicable to drug offenses. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Suppl. to App’x C, Am. 782 (2015). offender (a However, because Hall was sentenced as a career Guidelines range from which the district court departed downward at sentencing), Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable Guidelines range, eligible for a sentence reduction. district court’s judgment. We and he is therefore not Accordingly, we affirm the dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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?