US v. Wyaketta Welch, No. 16-7670 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7670 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WYAKETTA LATOYA WELCH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:11-cr-00064-RBS-TEM-2) Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 4, 2017 Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wyaketta Latoya Welch, Appellant Pro Se. Alyssa Kate Nichol, Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wyaketta Latoya Welch appeals the district court’s order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016) (providing standard). Under § 3582(c)(2), the district court of defendant who may has modify been the term imprisonment sentenced . . . based on a “of a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered,” if the amendment is listed in the Guidelines as retroactively applicable. § 3582(c)(2); see U.S. Sentencing § 1B1.10(a)(1), (d), p.s. (2016). 18 U.S.C. Guidelines Manual Guidelines § 1B1.10(d), p.s., lists the amendments that receive retroactive application, and this list does not include Amendment 794. The district court therefore denying did not abuse its discretion in relief she sought under Amendment 794. Welch the See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 249 n.2 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. McHan, 386 F.3d 620, 622 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, dispense with contentions are we oral affirm the argument adequately district because presented in court’s the the facts order. We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.