Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Jonathan Hough, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    28 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Jonathan Hough appealed a district court's denial of his motion to reconsider the court's previous denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's denial because a district court does not have the authority to reconsider a prior order on a 3582 motion. The Court dispensed with oral argument, affirming the district court's ruling.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-03-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-7697

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Jonathan Hough appealed a district court's denial of his motion to reconsider the court's previous denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's denial because a district court does not have the authority to reconsider a prior order on a 3582 motion. The Court dispensed with oral argument, affirming the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    28 views2 pages

    United States v. Jonathan Hough, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Jonathan Hough appealed a district court's denial of his motion to reconsider the court's previous denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's denial because a district court does not have the authority to reconsider a prior order on a 3582 motion. The Court dispensed with oral argument, affirming the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-7697

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    JONATHAN HOUGH,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Rebecca Beach Smith,
    Chief District Judge. (4:05-cr-00037-RBS-FBS-8)

    Submitted:

    March 27, 2014

    Before MOTZ, Circuit


    Circuit Judges.

    Judge,

    Decided: March 31, 2014

    and

    HAMILTON

    and

    DAVIS,

    Senior

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jonathan Hough, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant


    United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jonathan

    Hough

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying his motion to reconsider the courts previous denial of


    his

    18

    U.S.C.

    reduction.
    error.

    3582(c)(2)

    (2012)

    motion

    for

    sentence

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th

    Cir. 2010) (holding that district court does not have authority
    to reconsider prior order on 3582 motion).

    Accordingly, we

    affirm the district courts denial of relief.

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    this

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like