US v. Namond William


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6817 Doc: 38 Filed: 02/09/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6817 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. NAMOND EARL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Namond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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?