US v. Chandra Padgett
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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 . [17-4013]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
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
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?