Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Ward, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant Desmond Ward's motion for a sentence reduction but not provide any further reduction. The district court had reduced Ward's sentence from 235 months to 188 months imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on a sentencing guidelines amendment. The appellate court found no reversible error, as Ward was not entitled to a further sentence reduction according to precedent. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision for the same reasons provided by the lower court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-10-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-7068

    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 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant Desmond Ward's motion for a sentence reduction but not provide any further reduction. The district court had reduced Ward's sentence from 235 months to 188 months imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on a sentencing guidelines amendment. The appellate court found no reversible error, as Ward was not entitled to a further sentence reduction according to precedent. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision for the same reasons provided by the lower court.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Ward, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant Desmond Ward's motion for a sentence reduction but not provide any further reduction. The district court had reduced Ward's sentence from 235 months to 188 months imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on a sentencing guidelines amendment. The appellate court found no reversible error, as Ward was not entitled to a further sentence reduction according to precedent. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision for the same reasons provided by the lower court.

    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. 09-7068

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DESMOND WARD, a/k/a David A. King,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (3:96-cr-00029-GCM-2)

    Submitted:

    October 20, 2009

    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge,


    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Decided:

    NIEMEYER,

    October 26, 2009

    Circuit

    Judge,

    and

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Desmond Ward, Appellant Pro Se.


    Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Desmond

    Ward

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    granting his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.


    3582(c)(2) (2006) and lowering his sentence from 235 months to
    188 months of imprisonment.
    find

    no

    appeal,

    reversible
    he

    is

    error.

    not

    We have reviewed the record and


    Contrary

    entitled

    to

    to

    Wards

    further

    arguments

    reduction

    in

    on
    his

    sentence. See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th
    Cir.),

    cert.

    affirm

    for

    denied,

    the

    129

    reasons

    S.Ct.

    stated

    2401
    by

    the

    (2009).

    Accordingly,

    district

    court.

    we

    United

    States v. Ward, No. 3:96-cr-00029-GCM-2 (W.D.N.C. May 27, 2009).


    We

    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like