Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
U.S. v. HUDSON, 242 Fed.Appx. 16 (4th Cir. 2007)
242 Fed.Appx. 16
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2007-09-19
- Topic
- general
U.S. v. HUDSON, 242 Fed.Appx. 16 (4th Cir. 2007) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard CharlesHUDSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss, Defendant-Appellant.United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard CharlesHudson, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss,Defendant- Appellant. United States ofAmerica, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed U.S. v. HUDSON, 242 Fed.Appx. 16 (4th Cir. 2007). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
U.S. v. HUDSON,242 Fed.Appx. 16(4th Cir. 2007)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard Charles
HUDSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss, Defendant-Appellant.
Page 17
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard Charles
Hudson, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss,
Defendant- Appellant. United States of
America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard
Charles Hudson, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss,
Defendant -Appellant.
Nos. 07-6825, 07-6948, 07-7102.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 13, 2007.
Decided: September 19, 2007.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00156).
Howard Charles Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
After the district court granted Howard Charles Hudson's18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motion and reduced his sentence from life in prison to 360 months, Hudson filed a Fed.R.Crim.P.35(a) motion asserting that district court should have applied the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory underUnited States v. Booker,543 U.S. 220,125 S.Ct. 738,160 L.Ed.2d 621(2005), and that his sentence should have been based on an offense level of twelve due to the drug quantity stated in the indictment. The district court denied the Rule 35(a) motion and also denied Hudson's motion for reconsideration of that order. He now appeals from the orders granting his motion for a reduction in sentence, denying his Rule 35(a) motion, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record on appeal and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.United States v. Hudson, No. 2:93-cr-00156 (E.D. Va. filed May 16, 2007 entered May 17, 2006; June 6, 2007; filed June 27, 2007 entered June 28, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.AFFIRMED.
- [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩