U.S. v. EDWARDS, 12-7887. (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20130123119
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jan. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Jan. 23, 2013
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. ORDER The Court amends its opinion filed January 23, 2013, as follows: On the cover sheet, district court information section — the district court docket number is corrected. PER CURIAM: Carlton A. Edwards appeals the district court's order denying his motion seeking to compel the Government to file a motion for reduction of sentence in his case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Wade v. United Stat
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. ORDER The Court amends its opinion filed January 23, 2013, as follows: On the cover sheet, district court information section — the district court docket number is corrected. PER CURIAM: Carlton A. Edwards appeals the district court's order denying his motion seeking to compel the Government to file a motion for reduction of sentence in his case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Wade v. United State..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
ORDER
The Court amends its opinion filed January 23, 2013, as follows:
On the cover sheet, district court information section — the district court docket number is corrected.
PER CURIAM:
Carlton A. Edwards appeals the district court's order denying his motion seeking to compel the Government to file a motion for reduction of sentence in his case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-87 (1992) (describing the scope of the prosecution's discretion in filing such a motion); United States v. Butler, 272 F.3d 683, 686-87 (4th Cir. 2001) (same); see also United States v. LeRose, 219 F.3d 335, 341-43 (4th Cir. 2000) (evidentiary hearing not required unless defendant makes a "`substantial threshold showing'" that the prosecution's refusal to file the requested motion resulted from improper or suspect motives (quoting Wade, 504 U.S. at 186)). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.
Source: Leagle
