Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Robert Wilkerson, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Robert Wilkerson appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the sentencing guidelines. The appellate court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court that Amendment 782 did not alter Wilkerson's guidelines range for his narcotics conviction. As such, the appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Wilkerson's 3582(c)(2) motion. The appellate court also affirmed the district court's denial of Wilkerson's motion for reconsideration, noting the district court lacked authority to reconsider its denial of the 3582(c)(2) motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-06-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 16-6511

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Robert Wilkerson appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the sentencing guidelines. The appellate court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court that Amendment 782 did not alter Wilkerson's guidelines range for his narcotics conviction. As such, the appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Wilkerson's 3582(c)(2) motion. The appellate court also affirmed the district court's denial of Wilkerson's motion for reconsideration, noting the district court lacked authority to reconsider its denial of the 3582(c)(2) motion.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Robert Wilkerson, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robert Wilkerson appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the sentencing guidelines. The appellate court reviewed the record and agreed with the district court that Amendment 782 did not alter Wilkerson's guidelines range for his narcotics conviction. As such, the appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Wilkerson's 3582(c)(2) motion. The appellate court also affirmed the district court's denial of Wilkerson's motion for reconsideration, noting the district court lacked authority to reconsider its denial of the 3582(c)(2) motion.

    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. 16-6511

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    ROBERT MOSES WILKERSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Malcolm J. Howard,
    Senior District Judge. (5:96-cr-00167-H-1)

    Submitted:

    June 23, 2016

    Decided:

    June 29, 2016

    Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert
    Moses
    Wilkerson,
    Appellant
    Pro
    Se.
    Jennifer
    P.
    May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Moses Wilkerson appeals the district courts order
    denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence
    reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines,
    as

    well

    as

    its

    reconsideration.
    district

    court

    order

    denying

    Wilkersons

    motion

    for

    We have reviewed the record and agree with the


    that

    Amendment

    782

    did

    not

    alter

    Guidelines range on his narcotics conviction.

    Wilkersons

    Thus, we affirm

    the district courts order denying 3582(c)(2) relief.

    See

    United States v. Wilkerson, No. 5:96-cr-00167-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Jan.


    14, 2016).
    In

    addition,

    reconsider

    its

    the

    order

    district

    denying

    court

    lacked

    Wilkersons

    authority

    3582(c)(2)

    to

    motion.

    See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir.
    2010).

    Accordingly, we also affirm the district courts order

    denying

    Wilkersons

    States v.
    2016).
    legal

    Wilkerson,

    motion
    No.

    for

    reconsideration.

    5:96-cr-00167-H-1

    See

    (E.D.N.C.

    United

    Mar.

    30,

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional
    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like