US v. Anthony Hatches, No. 08-7133 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on November 20, 2008.

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7133 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY HATCHES, a/k/a Jameel Smith, a/k/a Anthony Dove, a/k/a Ant Hatches, a/k/a Anthony Farvey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00058-NKM-1) Submitted: November 24, 2009 Decided: December 16, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Hatches, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce A. Pagel, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia; Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Hatches appeals the district court s granting his 18 U.S.C. ยง 3582(c) (2006) motion. order We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Hatches motion for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review). Insofar as Hatches suggests the court could have considered an even lower sentence below the Sentencing Guidelines range, this claim is foreclosed by United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir.) ( [A] district judge is not authorized to reduce a defendant s sentence below the amended guideline range. ), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009). find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record and Accordingly, reasons stated by the district court. No. 3:02-cr-00058-NKM-1 Hatches court. legal before motion (W.D. challenging Va. the we affirm for the United States v. Hatches, June 3, 2008). jurisdiction of We the deny district We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.