Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Harry Baptiste, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Harry Ramone Baptiste appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the sentencing amendment Baptiste relied upon did not lower his applicable sentencing guidelines range. As the district court did not abuse its discretion, its denial of Baptiste's motion was also affirmed. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-10-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-7077

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Harry Ramone Baptiste appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the sentencing amendment Baptiste relied upon did not lower his applicable sentencing guidelines range. As the district court did not abuse its discretion, its denial of Baptiste's motion was also affirmed. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Harry Baptiste, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Harry Ramone Baptiste appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the sentencing amendment Baptiste relied upon did not lower his applicable sentencing guidelines range. As the district court did not abuse its discretion, its denial of Baptiste's motion was also affirmed. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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. 11-7077

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    HARRY RAMONE BAPTISTE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
    Richard L.
    Voorhees, District Judge. (5:99-cr-00059-RLV-1)

    Submitted:

    October 13, 2011

    Decided:

    October 18, 2011

    Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Harry Ramone Baptiste, 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:
    Harry Ramone Baptiste appeals a district court order
    denying

    his

    motion

    3582(c) (2006).
    did

    not

    district
    United

    lower
    did

    States

    (stating

    for

    sentence

    We affirm.

    Baptistes
    not

    abuse

    v.

    Goines,

    standard

    of

    district courts order.

    reduction

    under

    18

    U.S.C.

    Because the amendment in question

    Guidelines
    its

    sentence,

    discretion

    357

    F.3d

    review).

    469,

    we

    denying
    478

    Accordingly,

    the

    (4th
    we

    find

    the

    motion.

    Cir.

    2004)

    affirm

    the

    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