US v. Ahmad Hobbs, No. 15-6107 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6107 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AHMAD RASHAD HOBBS, a/k/a Sean Hicks, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-00024-RBS-FBS-1) Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ahmad Rashad Hobbs, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ahmad denying Rashad Hobbs’ Hobbs 18 appeals U.S.C. the district § 3582(c)(2) court’s (2012) motion orders for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2014), and denying reconsideration of that order. A district court’s decision on whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion, while its conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under that provision is reviewed de novo. United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not abuse motion. its discretion in denying Hobbs’ § 3582(c)(2) The court plainly understood its authority to reduce Hobbs’ sentence pursuant to Amendment 782, see United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), facts and 197, p.s., circumstances abundantly familiar. 203 (4th but declined of Hobbs’ to case, Cir. 2010); do based on the which it was so with USSG See United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 196-97 (4th Cir. 2013). Moreover, despite Hobbs’ claim to the contrary, it is well settled that the district court is not required to provide individualized reasoning when deciding a § 3582(c)(2) motion, see United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 728-29 (4th Cir. 2000), and the record does not support Hobbs’ argument that the court failed 2 to consider the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. 97. See Smalls, 720 F.3d at 195- Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Hobbs’ § 3582(c)(2) motion for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States Va. v. Hobbs, No. 4:08–cr–00024–RBS-FBS-1 (E.D. filed Nov. 21, 2014; entered Nov. 25, 2014). We also conclude that the district court lacked authority to entertain States v. Hobbs’ Goodwyn, motion 596 for F.3d reconsideration. 233, 235–36 (4th See United Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying that motion. Finally, we deny Hobbs’ motion for the appointment of counsel. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
