US v. Chandra Padgett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00167-JFA-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. Mailed to: Chandra Padgett [1000091392]. [17-4013]

Appeal: 17-4013

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/31/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-4013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHANDRA PADGETT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00167-JFA-1)

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chandra Padgett, Appellant Pro Se. Tommie DeWayne Pearson, Anne Hunter Young,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-4013

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/31/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Chandra Padgett seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the
Government’s motion in her criminal case. Our review of the district court’s order is
governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2012). United States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 190, 193 (4th
Cir. 2012). While the statute gives us “jurisdiction to hear challenges to the lawfulness of
the method used by the district court in making its sentencing decision,” we lack
“jurisdiction to review any part of a discretionary sentencing decision.” Id. at 194.
Because the sole issue Padgett raises on appeal challenges the district court’s
discretionary sentencing decision, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED

2