US v. Rodney T. Hoffman, No. 10-4975 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4975 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODNEY T. HOFFMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00216-1) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, Perry D. McDaniel, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rodney T. Hoffman pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of storage of hazardous waste without a permit, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A) (2006). On appeal, he challenges the district court s denial of his request for a downward departure under Application Notes 7 and 8 to the Commentary for U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Q1.2 (2009). We dismiss the appeal. This court does not have jurisdiction to review the denial of a downward departure so long as the district court recognized Bayerle, the 898 district authority F.2d court s 28, to depart. 30-31 refusal (4th to See Cir. depart United 1990). States Because downward followed v. the its conclusion that the evidence did not support a departure, its ruling on this issue is not reviewable on appeal. United States v. Quinn, 359 F.3d 666, 682 (4th Cir. 2004). Because we conclude that the district court recognized the authority to depart and found that the evidence did not support a departure, we dismiss the appeal. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal before contentions the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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.