US v. Hassaan H. Rashaad, No. 12-7841 (4th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7841 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HASSAAN HAAKIM RASHAAD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:01-cr-00195-MOC-1) Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: February 28, 2013 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hassaan Haakim Rashaad, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hassaan orders denying Haakim his 18 Rashaad U.S.C. § appeals the 3582(c)(2) district (2006) court s motion for reduction in his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2010) and denying relief on his motion for reconsideration of that order. We first conclude that the district court properly determined that Rashaad was ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentencing range was determined by his career offender designation, not a calculation of the drug quantity attributable to Rashaad, and thus was not impacted by Amendment 750. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010). the denial of Rashaad s § 3582(c)(2) stated by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm motion for the reasons See United States v. Rashaad, No. 3:01 cr 00195 MOC-1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 27, 2012). We authority also to conclude entertain that Rashaad s the district motion for court lacked reconsideration. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 36 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, denying relief dispense with contentions are on we affirm Rashaad s oral argument adequately the motion district for because presented in court s order reconsideration. the the facts 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.