Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chandra PADGETT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-31
Citations: 691 F. App'x 93
Docket Number: No. 17-4013
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chandra PADGETT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 93–94

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chandra PADGETT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-4013
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 25, 2017
Decided: May 31, 2017
Chandra Padgett, Appellant Pro Se. Tommie DeWayne Pearson, Anne Hunter Young, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chandra Padgett seeks to appeal the district court's order granting the Government's motion in her criminal case. Our review of the district court's order is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2012). United States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 190, 193 (4th Cir. 2012). While the statute gives us "jurisdiction to hear challenges to the lawfulness of the method used by the district court in making its sentencing decision," we lack "jurisdiction to review any part of a discretionary sentencing decision." Id. at 194. Because the sole issue Padgett raises on appeal challenges the district court's discretionary sentencing decision, 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 the decisional process.
DISMISSED