Filed: Nov. 15, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7268 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SANCHEZ HUDSON, a/k/a Chez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00039-FDW-14) Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sanchez
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7268 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SANCHEZ HUDSON, a/k/a Chez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00039-FDW-14) Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sanchez H..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7268
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SANCHEZ HUDSON, a/k/a Chez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00039-FDW-14)
Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sanchez Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sanchez Hudson appeals the district court’s order
granting counsel’s motion for a sentence reduction under 18
U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). We have considered Hudson’s argument on
appeal and conclude there was no abuse of discretion by the
district court. See United States v. Goines,
357 F.3d 469, 478
(4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review). 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