US v. Yhine Hines, No. 12-7408 (4th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7408 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. YHINE HINES, a/k/a Itty, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00304-JRS-8) Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 16, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yhine Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yhine Hines appeals the district court s order denying his motion seeking § 3582(c)(2) a reduction (2006). This of court sentence reviews under the § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). 18 U.S.C. denial of a United States v. We have reviewed the record and conclude that, as the district court properly held, Hines is ineligible for the reduction he seeks. reduction warranted range predicated was unaffected by amendment). where on the defendant s a statutory Id. at 187 (no applicable or Guidelines retroactively-applicable Guidelines provision Guidelines See also Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2690-92 (2010) (because a § 3582(c)(2) motion does not permit a plenary resentencing proceeding, a court may not revisit any Guidelines application provisions affected decisions by the other than applicable the Guidelines amendment); United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 201 (4th Cir. 2010) (same). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before 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.