Filed: Mar. 30, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6658 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WAINSWORTH MARCELLUS HALL, a/k/a Unique, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:93-cr-00162-RAJ-1) Submitted: March 27, 2017 Decided: March 30, 2017 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas Dav
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6658 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WAINSWORTH MARCELLUS HALL, a/k/a Unique, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:93-cr-00162-RAJ-1) Submitted: March 27, 2017 Decided: March 30, 2017 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas Davi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6658
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WAINSWORTH MARCELLUS HALL, a/k/a Unique,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:93-cr-00162-RAJ-1)
Submitted: March 27, 2017 Decided: March 30, 2017
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicholas David Renninger, KOZAK, DAVIS, RENNINGER & BELOTE, P.C.,
Portsmouth, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Randy C.
Stoker, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wainsworth Marcellus Hall appeals the district court’s order denying his motions
to reconsider the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. The
district court lacked jurisdiction to grant Hall’s motions for reconsideration, see United
States v. Goodwyn,
596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010), and therefore 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