Filed: Nov. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7205 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH RAY HUNTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:05-cr-00049-JPB-JES-1) Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 28, 2017 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7205 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH RAY HUNTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:05-cr-00049-JPB-JES-1) Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 28, 2017 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7205
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH RAY HUNTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:05-cr-00049-JPB-JES-1)
Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 28, 2017
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Ray Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States
Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Ray Hunter appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
reconsideration of the court’s prior order denying Hunter’s motion for a sentence
reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), because Hunter was sentenced as a
career offender. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See United
States v. May,
855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017) (noting that prohibition on a district
court’s consideration of a motion to reconsider a § 3582 order is not jurisdictional and is
waived if not invoked by the government). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. 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