Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a two-level sentence reduction and denial of further reduction for Michael Haymond. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling. As Haymond's original sentence was within the applicable guidelines, the district court was not authorized under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) to reduce his sentence below the amended guideline range in a resentencing hearing. The Court of Appeals denied Haymond's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-03-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6902

    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 grant of a two-level sentence reduction and denial of further reduction for Michael Haymond. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling. As Haymond's original sentence was within the applicable guidelines, the district court was not authorized under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) to reduce his sentence below the amended guideline range in a resentencing hearing. The Court of Appeals denied Haymond's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a two-level sentence reduction and denial of further reduction for Michael Haymond. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling. As Haymond's original sentence was within the applicable guidelines, the district court was not authorized under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) to reduce his sentence below the amended guideline range in a resentencing hearing. The Court of Appeals denied Haymond's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument.

    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. 08-6902

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MICHAEL PAUL HAYMOND,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
    Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00013-JPB-3)

    Submitted:

    February 26, 2009

    Decided:

    March 4, 2009

    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Brian Joseph Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg,


    West Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Martinsburg,
    West
    Virginia,
    for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Paul Haymond appeals from the district courts
    order

    granting

    further
    (2006).

    sentence

    two-level

    sentence

    reduction

    reduction

    pursuant

    to

    18

    and

    denying

    U.S.C.

    3582(c)

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts

    order and find no abuse of discretion.

    Accordingly, we affirm
    See United States v.

    on the reasoning of the district court.

    Haymond, No. 3:05-cr-00013-JPB-3 (N.D.W. Va., May 28, 2008).

    We

    note Haymond was not entitled to a resentencing hearing or a


    sentence

    below

    the

    amended

    guideline

    range.

    See

    United

    States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir. 2009) (When a
    sentence is within the guidelines applicable at the time of the
    original

    sentencing,

    hearing,

    district

    in

    an

    18

    U.S.C.

    judge

    is

    not

    3582(c)

    authorized

    resentencing
    to

    reduce

    defendant's sentence below the amended guideline range.).

    a
    We

    deny Haymonds motion for appointment of counsel and 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