United States v. Leila Hector

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 1, 2024
• Docket: 23-7133
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7133 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6260

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LEILA VARETTA HECTOR, a/k/a Leila Varretta Hector, a/k/a Leila Varetta Hector-Dykes, a/k/a Rita Hector,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 23-7133

LEILA VARETTA HECTOR, a/k/a Leila Varretta Hector, a/k/a Leila Varetta Hector-Dykes, a/k/a Rita Hector,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00003-JPJ-PMS-2)

Submitted: September 23, 2024 Decided: October 1, 2024 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7133 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leila Varetta Hector, Appellant Pro Se. S. Cagle Juhan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia; Jonathan Patrick Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, Jason Mitchell Scheff, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7133 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Leila Varetta Hector appeals the district court’s

orders denying her motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district

court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed

against Hector’s release. See United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023)

(stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. United

States v. Hector, No. 2:18-cr-00003-JPJ-PMS-2 (W.D. Va. Dec. 28, 2022; Feb. 27, 2023;

Oct. 5, 2023). 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