US v. Quentin Hines, No. 14-6648 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6648 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. QUENTIN MARQUE HINES, a/k/a Quest, a/k/a Scott Phree, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00237-D-1) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Before FLOYD and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit Judges, and July 29, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Quentin Marque Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Quentin Marque Hines seeks to appeal the district court order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. A district court may reduce the sentence of a defendant whose Guidelines sentencing range has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013). United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d Whether to grant such a reduction is within the district court s discretion, so long as it considers the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) to the extent applicable. 195. the See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Smalls, 720 F.3d at The court is not required to grant a reduction, even if sentence the Guidelines range. defendant received is above the amended United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010). We review a district court s decision whether to grant a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). United States v. In so doing, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the district court, but instead consider whether the court s exercise of discretion was arbitrary or capricious. United States v. Mason, 52 F.3d 1286, 1289 (4th Cir. 1995). 2 Our review of the record demonstrates that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hines motion. The court clearly understood its authority to reduce Hines sentence pursuant to the crack cocaine Guidelines amendment but declined to do so based on its careful review of Hines circumstances. [D]istrict courts determining factors. the have weight to extremely be given broad each discretion of the when § 3553(a) 2011). United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. While the court was entitled to consider Hines post-conviction conduct, see Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229, 1242 (2011), we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in determining that Hines extensive criminal history, failure to comply with probation or pretrial release, and personal history justified the sentence originally imposed, even in light of the revised Guidelines range. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this 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.
