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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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 [1000091392]. [17-4013]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-4013 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/31/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-4013 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHANDRA PADGETT, Defendant - Appellant.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?