Filed: Jun. 02, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7629 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMIE SYLVESTER HAWKINS, a/k/a Jaime Sylvester Hawkins, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:00-cr-00565-AW-1) Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: June 2, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7629 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMIE SYLVESTER HAWKINS, a/k/a Jaime Sylvester Hawkins, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:00-cr-00565-AW-1) Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: June 2, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7629
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMIE SYLVESTER HAWKINS, a/k/a Jaime Sylvester Hawkins,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:00-cr-00565-AW-1)
Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: June 2, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamie Sylvester Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamie Sylvester Hawkins appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)
(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error because, as a career offender, Hawkins’ offense level was
determined based on his status as a career offender, U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1, rather than on relevant
conduct under USSG § 2D1.1(c). Amendment 706 of the Guidelines
did not impact § 4B1.1. Accordingly, we affirm. 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
2