US v. Christopher Haye

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:02-cr-00548-CMC-7. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999779227]. Mailed to: C. Hayes. [15-7909]

Appeal: 15-7909

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7909

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER TOBY HAYES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-7)

Submitted:

March 17, 2016

Decided:

March 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Toby Hayes, Appellant Pro Se.
Beth Drake, John C.
Potterfield, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, Carrie Fisher Sherard,
Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7909

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Christopher Toby Hayes appeals the district court’s order
granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence
reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines,
as well as its order dismissing his motion for reconsideration.
We

have

reviewed

Accordingly,
Hayes’

we

the

record

affirm

the

§ 3582(c)(2)

district court.

motion

and

find

district
for

the

no

reversible

court’s

order

reasons

stated

error.

granting
by

the

See United States v. Hayes, No. 3:02-cr-00548-

CMC-7 (D.S.C. Oct. 27, 2015).

We also agree with the district

court’s assessment that it lacked authority to entertain Hayes’
motion for reconsideration.

See United States v. Goodwyn, 596

F.3d

2010).

233,

235-36

(4th

Cir.

Accordingly,

we

likewise

affirm the district court’s order dismissing Hayes’ motion for
reconsideration.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials before this court and argument would not aid in the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2