Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Halley, 08-6798 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-6798 Visitors: 39
Filed: Jan. 26, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6798 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DERYCK LENNOX HALLEY, Defendant – Appellant. No. 08-6851 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DERYCK LENNOX HALLEY, Defendant – Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:89-cr-00115-jct-1) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010 Before N
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6798 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DERYCK LENNOX HALLEY, Defendant – Appellant. No. 08-6851 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DERYCK LENNOX HALLEY, Defendant – Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:89-cr-00115-jct-1) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Deryck Lennox Halley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In Appeal No. 08-6798, Deryck Lennox Halley appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). In Appeal No. 08-6851, Halley appeals the district court’s subsequently filed amended judgment denying the same motion. The two appeals have been consolidated. Because the district court’s amended judgment supersedes the court’s previous order denying Halley’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, we dismiss Halley’s appeal of the previous order as moot. With respect to Halley’s appeal of the district court’s amended judgment, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Halley, No. 7:89-cr-00115-jct-1 (W.D. Va. May 13, 2008). 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. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer