US v. William Wilson, No. 09-8087 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8087 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM DAVID WILSON, a/k/a Pudgie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (3:94-cr-00065-BO-12) Submitted: March 25, 2010 Decided: May 5, 2010 Before MICHAEL, * MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William David Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. * Judge Michael was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: William David Wilson appeals a district court order denying his motion for U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). a sentence reduction filed under 18 We affirm. The legal interpretations of the Sentencing Guidelines and the amendments are reviewed de novo. reviewed for clear error. Factual findings are See United States v. Turner, 59 F.3d 481, 483-84 (4th Cir. 1995). This court reviews the denial of a motion for a reduction in the sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004). Our review of the sentencing transcript shows that the district court did not err when it denied Wilson s § 3582(c) motion on the basis that kilograms of crack cocaine. court s order. he was held accountable for 11.7 Accordingly, we affirm the district We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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.