Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06711/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06711-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Monquay Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6711

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MONQUAY WILLIAMS, a/k/a Quay,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (4:10-cr-00047-RBS-TEM-5)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Monquay Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, 

Eric Matthew Hurt, Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Valerie S. Muth, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6711 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Monquay Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

granting the Government’s motion to reduce his sentence. Under 18 

U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2012), we “lack jurisdiction to review the extent 

of the district court’s downward departure.” United States v. 

Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995); see United States v. Davis, 

679 F.3d 190, 193-94 (4th Cir. 2012) (explaining that, although 

the court may entertain “challenges to the lawfulness of the method 

used by the district court in making its sentencing decision,” 

this court lacks “jurisdiction to review any part of a 

discretionary sentencing decision”). Because the sole issue 

raised on appeal attacks the extent of the reduction awarded by 

the district court, we dismiss this appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. 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. 

DISMISSED 

Appeal: 15-6711 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 2