Case ID: f-appx_362/html/0369-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deryck Lennox HALLEY, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deryck Lennox Halley, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 08-6798, 08-6851.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 19, 2010.
    Decided: Jan. 26, 2010.
    Deryck Lennox Halley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In Appeal No. 08-6798, Deryck Lennox Halley appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). In Appeal No. 08-6851, Halley appeals the district court’s subsequently filed amended judgment denying the same motion. The two appeals have been consolidated. Because the district court’s amended judgment supersedes the court’s previous order denying Halley’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, we dismiss Halley’s appeal of the previous order as moot.

With respect to Halley’s appeal of the district court’s amended judgment, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Halley, No. 7:89-cr-00115-jct-1 (W.D.Va. May 13, 2008). 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.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.