US v. Raymond Edward Chestnut
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [1000018618-2] Originating case number: 4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1,4:16-cv-02013-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Raymond Edward Chestnut. [17-6078]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-02013-RBH)
Submitted: May 9, 2017
Decided: May 11, 2017
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Edward Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United
States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Raymond Edward Chestnut appeals the district court’s January 9, 2017 text order
continuing to hold Chestnut’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motions in abeyance pending a decision in Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017).
After Chestnut filed his notice of appeal, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Beckles,
and the district court entered an order denying relief on the § 3582(c)(2) motion and
dismissing the § 2255 motions. Accordingly, we deny Chestnut’s motion for bail or release
pending appeal and dismiss the appeal as moot. 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.
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?