Ham v. United States of America, No. 7:2017cv00295 - Document 3 (W.D. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief United States District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 6/27/2017. (tvt)

Download PDF

G ERK' DFFI U. DI S CE S. 3T. AT RO,>QKE. '1 : . VA i I TH E U N I N TED STA TES DI STRI T C O UR T C FOR THE W ESTERN DI STRI OF W RGI A CT NI R O A N O K E DI I O N V SI JO H N FO R RE ST H A M , . JR , J 2? 2 1 UN 27 U - :.-.'1* ULI . . , BY: C A SE N O .7: 17CV 00295 Pe ii r, t tone V. M EM OM NDUM OPI ON NI UNI TED STATES OF AM ERI CA, By: H on.Gln E.Conr e ad C hi fU nie St e D it i tJudge e t d at s s r c R e ponde . s nt J l Fo r s H a , J . a i at a t U nied St t s Pe t nta y i Lee Count om r e t m r , n nm e t he t ae nie i r n y, Vigi a,fl d t s a ton,pr s a a pe ii f a wrt of ha a cor unde 28 U . C. r ni ie hi c i o e, s tton or i be s pus r S. j2241 Hnm algest the s d ber s ntnc d,bec us hi fderlcrmi lsntnce i . le ha houl ee e e a e s e a i na e e s unlwf lt rM ahi v.Unied St t , U . a u mde t s t aes S. - - , 1 6 S Ct2 43( 01 )a dJ h o v Urtd 3 . . 2 2 6 n o ns n . l e i Sae , U. ,1 S.Ct 2551( 5) Upon rviw o t r or t c tc l st t tts S. 35 . 201 . e e f he ec d, he our oncude ha Hn s cam f r i unde j 2241 i t s c ti a opdaey c t ed a a moton t m' li or elef r n hi our s ppr tl onsnz s i o v c t , e a i o c pe t h sn e c u d r2 U. C. 2 5 a dta ser dt t es n e cn a ae st sde r o c t e e tn e n e 8 S. j 2 5 n rn fre o h e tn i g cour . t Hn ' peii a co r co ds aval bl onlne i cae t tHn pl de guly i m s tton nd urt e r ia e i ndi t ha m ea d it n 201 i t Unied St t s Ditit Cotr f Sout Ca olna t pos e so of a fr r a a 0 n he t a e src zt or h r i o s sin iea m s c n itd fln,c a k n ,a d p se so o a fr am i f rh rn e o a ci o vo e c . o v ce eo mj c i g n o s sin f ie r n u tea c f rme f iln e Th c u tsn e c d Ha t 31 mo t si pi o . Th j g n wa afr d o a p a, nd e o r e tn q m o 9 nh n zs n e ud me t s fime n p e l a Hn s j2 5 mo in i te So t Caoi DititCo r wa t u c s f l Assae ,Hn m' 2 5 to n h uh r l na src u t s ms c e su . ttd m Ham v. United States of America Doc. 3 no p tto st sc u tu d rj 2 41 f rh be sc r u r l fu d rt e M ah sa d J h o w ei n hi o r n e 2 o a a o p s ei n e h i e ti n o ns n de i i ns H n bele s t t hi s nt nc i unco tt i lbe aus pr or c c so . m i ve ha s e e e s ns i ona c e i onvi t o us d t m c i ns e o e nc t s nt nc a l edl no l r qua iy aspr di a esunde t A r e Ca e r Crm i l nha e he e e e leg y onge lf e ct r he m d r e i na A c a t Ca ee Ofe rgui lne. t nd he r r f nde de i Dockets.Justia.com Assa e Hn ' c am c le est l ga iy ofhi f de als nt nce a i t t d, m s l i hal ng he e lt s e r e e s mpos d. Suc e h cai mus nomal beried on a alori a j2255 moton i t s ntncng c t I r l ms t r ly as ppe n i n he e e i our. n e J n s 2 6 F.d 3 8,3 2 (t Ci.2 0 ) Peio rs j 2 41peiin r iig s c cams i o e , 2 3 2 3 4 h r 0 0 . tt ne ' 2 i t o asn u h li s t bard t e si me t t srnge sandad ma td l rt J re mls t es he ti nt t r ndae mde he onesdecso L=. t333iin. d a 34 (i dng t t c aln e t fd r lc n cin i b re fo rviw u d r j 2 41 a e ta fn i ha h le g o e ea o vito s ar d r m e e n e 2 bs n s howi t tunde apos- onviton c ng ha r tc c i hangei t lw,peii rsof e eco uc i no l er n he a ttone ' f ns nd t s ong ci n l. Be a e n ih rt e M ah sd cso n rte J hn o d cso h d n efc o te rmia) c us et e h t i e ii n o h o s n e ii n a o fe t n h ci n ly o Hn sf d r lo fns c n u t h c n o p o e d wih h scam t e j 2 41 rmiai f m' e ea fe e o d c, e n n t r c e t i li md r 2 . t Theef e t c twilde r le unde j2241,c t e Ha ' s sin a a j 2255 r or, he our l ny eif r onsnz m s ubmiso s m oton, a ta f r i t t Unie Stt Ditit Cour f So h Ca olna f r f rhe i nd r ns e t o he t d aes src t or ut r i o ut r pr e ngsi lghtoft r c ntc tde sonsHa cies oc edi n i he e e our cii m t .TheCl r i die t d t s nd c e e k s r c e o e opi s oft sm e a hi mor ndum o ni n a a co pa ng or rt peii r pi o nd c m nyi de o ttone . s s Ti qQa oln,07 xT R: hs y fue2 1. Chi fUrie St t Diti tJ e lt d aes src udge 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.