Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monquay WILLIAMS, a/k/a Quay, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-24
Citations: 610 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 15-6711
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monquay WILLIAMS, a/k/a Quay, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 610
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monquay WILLIAMS, a/k/a Quay, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-6711.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 21, 2015.
Decided: July 24, 2015.
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.
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.