Filed: Apr. 26, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7600 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JIMMIE DARION STANLEY, a/k/a Big Worm, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cr-01001-TLW-1) Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 26, 2011 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmie Dar
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7600 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JIMMIE DARION STANLEY, a/k/a Big Worm, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cr-01001-TLW-1) Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 26, 2011 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmie Dari..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7600
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JIMMIE DARION STANLEY, a/k/a Big Worm,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:06-cr-01001-TLW-1)
Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 26, 2011
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmie Darion Stanley, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmie Darion Stanley seeks to appeal the extent of
the district court’s reduction of his sentence pursuant to the
Government’s Rule 35(b) motion. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006)
this court does not have “jurisdiction to review the extent of
the district court’s downward departure.” United States v.
Hill,
70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2