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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [16-6817]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
NAMOND EARL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Namond Brewington, a/k/a Tony
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
January 25, 2017
February 9, 2017
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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,
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
sentence above the amended Guidelines range was error; and the
motion for abuse of discretion.
See United States v. Goines,
357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004).
We have thoroughly reviewed
discretion or violate Williams’ right to due process in reducing
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).
Pg: 3 of 3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?