United States v. Edwards

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Edwards

516 F. App'x 254

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 2013

DocketNo. 12-7912

StatusPublished

This text of 516 F. App'x 254 (United States v. Edwards) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Edwards, 516 F. App'x 254 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Edwards, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5H1.11 (2012). As Edwards was sentenced in 2007, his motion is untimely. In addition, to the extent Edwards relies upon Amendment 739 to the Guidelines (amending § 5H1.11 in 2010), this amendment has not been made retroactively applicable. See USSG § lB1.10(c). Accordingly, we affirm. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Edwards, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5H1.11 (2012). As Edwards was sentenced in 2007, his motion is untimely. In addition, to the extent Edwards relies upon Amendment 739 to the Guidelines (amending § 5H1.11 in 2010), this amendment has not been made retroactively applicable. See USSG § lB1.10(c). Accordingly, we affirm. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 F. App'x 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-edwards-ca4-2013.