Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07909/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07909-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Toby Hayes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7909

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER TOBY HAYES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior

District Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-7)

Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Toby Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, John C. 

Potterfield, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, Carrie Fisher Sherard, 

Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7909 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Christopher Toby Hayes appeals the district court’s order 

granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence 

reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, 

as well as its order dismissing his motion for reconsideration. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting 

Hayes’ § 3582(c)(2) motion for the reasons stated by the 

district court. See United States v. Hayes, No. 3:02-cr-00548-

CMC-7 (D.S.C. Oct. 27, 2015). We also agree with the district 

court’s assessment that it lacked authority to entertain Hayes’ 

motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 

F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we likewise 

affirm the district court’s order dismissing Hayes’ motion for 

reconsideration. 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 in the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-7909 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 2