Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06107/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06107-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ahmad Rashad Hobbs
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6107

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

AHMAD RASHAD HOBBS, a/k/a Sean Hicks,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,

Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-00024-RBS-FBS-1)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ahmad Rashad Hobbs, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6107 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Ahmad Rashad Hobbs appeals the district court’s orders 

denying Hobbs’ 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a 

sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual (2014), and denying reconsideration of that 

order. A district court’s decision on whether to reduce a 

sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion, 

while its conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under 

that provision is reviewed de novo. United States v. Munn, 595 

F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).

Our review of the record reveals that the district court 

did not abuse its discretion in denying Hobbs’ § 3582(c)(2) 

motion. The court plainly understood its authority to reduce 

Hobbs’ sentence pursuant to Amendment 782, see United States v. 

Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 203 (4th Cir. 2010); USSG 

§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), p.s., but declined to do so based on the 

facts and circumstances of Hobbs’ case, with which it was 

abundantly familiar. See United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 

196-97 (4th Cir. 2013). Moreover, despite Hobbs’ claim to the 

contrary, it is well settled that the district court is not 

required to provide individualized reasoning when deciding a 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion, see United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 

728-29 (4th Cir. 2000), and the record does not support Hobbs’ 

argument that the court failed to consider the relevant 18 

Appeal: 15-6107 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. See Smalls, 720 F.3d at 195-

97. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Hobbs’ § 3582(c)(2) 

motion for the reasons stated by the district court. See United 

States v. Hobbs, No. 4:08–cr–00024–RBS-FBS-1 (E.D. Va. filed 

Nov. 21, 2014; entered Nov. 25, 2014).

We also conclude that the district court lacked authority 

to entertain Hobbs’ motion for reconsideration. See United 

States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235–36 (4th Cir. 2010).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying that 

motion. Finally, we deny Hobbs’ motion for the appointment of 

counsel. 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

Appeal: 15-6107 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3