US v. Wyaketta Welch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cr-00064-RBS-TEM-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000055330]. Mailed to: Wyaketta Latoya Welch. [16-7670]

Appeal: 16-7670

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/04/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7670

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WYAKETTA LATOYA WELCH,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:11-cr-00064-RBS-TEM-2)

Submitted:

March 30, 2017

Decided:

April 4, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wyaketta Latoya Welch, Appellant Pro Se.
Alyssa Kate Nichol,
Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7670

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/04/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Wyaketta Latoya Welch appeals the district court’s order
denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
reduction

pursuant

to

Amendment

794

to

the

Sentencing

Guidelines.

We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of

discretion.

See United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437

(4th Cir. 2016) (providing standard).

Under § 3582(c)(2), the

district

court

of

defendant

who

may
has

modify
been

the

term

imprisonment

sentenced . . . based

on

a

“of

a

sentencing

range that has subsequently been lowered,” if the amendment is
listed in the Guidelines as retroactively applicable.
§ 3582(c)(2);

see

U.S.

Sentencing

§ 1B1.10(a)(1), (d), p.s. (2016).

18 U.S.C.

Guidelines

Manual

Guidelines § 1B1.10(d), p.s.,

lists the amendments that receive retroactive application, and
this list does not include Amendment 794.

The district court

therefore

denying

did

not

abuse

its

discretion

in

relief she sought under Amendment 794.

Welch

the

See United States v.

Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 249 n.2 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v.
McHan, 386 F.3d 620, 622 (4th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly,
dispense

with

contentions

are

we

oral

affirm

the

argument

adequately

district

because

presented

in

court’s

the
the

facts

order.

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2