United States v. Whitehead

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Whitehead

667 F. App'x 77

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 2016

DocketNo. 16-6297

StatusPublished

This text of 667 F. App'x 77 (United States v. Whitehead) 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. Whitehead, 667 F. App'x 77 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Demetrius Darrell Whitehead appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012), and reducing his sentence from 188 months to 162 months of imprisonment. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a greater reduction in Whitehead’s sentence. See United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013) (providing standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Whitehead, No. 5:10-cr-00213-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2016). We deny Whitehead’s “motion for abuse of discretion,” and 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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Demetrius Darrell Whitehead appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012), and reducing his sentence from 188 months to 162 months of imprisonment. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a greater reduction in Whitehead’s sentence. See United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013) (providing standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Whitehead, No. 5:10-cr-00213-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2016). We deny Whitehead’s “motion for abuse of discretion,” and 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)

667 F. App'x 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-whitehead-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack