Filed: Sep. 27, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. HAROLD DWIGHT WOOTEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (1:98-cr-00094-JAB-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. HAROLD DWIGHT WOOTEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (1:98-cr-00094-JAB-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6980 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. HAROLD DWIGHT WOOTEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (1:98-cr-00094-JAB-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold Dwight Wooten, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Harold Dwight Wooten appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Wooten relied on Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 750 for his motion. The district court denied relief because the Amendment did not result in a change to Wooten’s Guidelines range. We have reviewed the record and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court and argument will not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
