US v. Namond William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:90-cr-00135-JFM-4 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000020612].. [16-6817]

Appeal: 16-6817

Doc: 38

Filed: 02/09/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6817

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
NAMOND EARL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Namond Brewington, a/k/a Tony
Smith,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:90-cr-00135-JFM-4)

Submitted:

January 25, 2017

Decided:

February 9, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William B. Norman, NORMAN & TAYEH, LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Debra L.
Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6817

Doc: 38

Filed: 02/09/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Namond Earl Williams appeals the district court’s orders
granting Williams a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) and denying his motion for reconsideration,
in

which

Williams

he

advocated

argues

that

for
the

a

further

district

reduction.

court

may

On
not

appeal,

impose

a

sentence above an amended Guidelines range in a § 3582(c)(2)
proceeding; the procedure adopted by the court to adjudicate
sentence reductions following Amendment 782 to the Guidelines
violated
court’s

his

right

failure

to

to

due

notify

process
him

of

of
its

the

law;

intention

the
to

district
impose

a

sentence above the amended Guidelines range was error; and the
court

failed

to

properly

consider

his

motion

for

reconsideration.
We

review

an

order

granting

motion for abuse of discretion.

or

record

and

conclude

that

a

§ 3582(c)(2)

See United States v. Goines,

357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004).
the

denying

the

We have thoroughly reviewed
court

did

not

abuse

its

discretion or violate Williams’ right to due process in reducing
his

sentence

pursuant

to

§ 3582(c)(2).

In

addition,

as

the

district court was without authority to reconsider its ruling in
a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, the court correctly denied Williams’
motion for reconsideration.

See United States v. Goodwyn, 596

F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010).
2

Appeal: 16-6817

Doc: 38

Filed: 02/09/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3