US v. Carlton Edwards, No. 12-7887 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Filed: January 23, 2013 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7887 (3:11-cr-00100-REP-1) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARLTON A. EDWARDS, Defendant - Appellant. O R D E R The Court amends its opinion filed January 23, 2013, as follows: On the cover sheet, district court information section -the district court docket number is corrected. For the Court By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7887 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARLTON A. EDWARDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cr-00100-REP-1) Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 23, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlton A. Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie L. Mickelson, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carlton A. Edwards appeals the district court s order denying his motion seeking to compel the Government to file a motion for reduction of sentence in his case. the record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-87 (1992) (describing the scope of the prosecution s discretion in filing such a motion); United States v. Butler, 272 F.3d 683, 686-87 (4th Cir. 2001) (same); see also United States v. LeRose, 219 F.3d 335, 341-43 (4th Cir. 2000) (evidentiary hearing not required unless defendant makes a substantial threshold showing that the prosecution s refusal to file the requested motion resulted from improper or suspect motives (quoting Wade, 504 U.S. at 186)). affirm the judgment of the district court. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials Accordingly, we We dispense with legal contentions are before this and court 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.