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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?