Filed: Jun. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6623 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CELIA HAYNES EDWARDS, a/k/a Tina Hawks, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00038-JPJ-PMS-3; 1:12-cr-00030-JPJ-PMS-1) Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015 Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6623 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CELIA HAYNES EDWARDS, a/k/a Tina Hawks, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00038-JPJ-PMS-3; 1:12-cr-00030-JPJ-PMS-1) Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015 Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6623
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CELIA HAYNES EDWARDS, a/k/a Tina Hawks,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge.
(1:11-cr-00038-JPJ-PMS-3; 1:12-cr-00030-JPJ-PMS-1)
Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015
Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Celia Haynes Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Roy Franklin Evans, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Celia Haynes Edwards appeals the district court’s order
denying her motion for reconsideration of the court’s sentence
reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), and to
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. See United States v. Goodwyn,
596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that district court
does not have authority to reconsider prior order on § 3582
motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of
relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2