Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    United States v. Harold Fields, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Harold Fields' motion to reduce his sentence. Fields had argued for a reduction based on 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), which allows reductions due to retroactive guideline amendments. However, the appellate court found no errors in the district court's ruling and that 3582(c)(2) was not the proper mechanism to assert retroactive application of a Supreme Court case. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments and affirmed the lower court's denial of Fields' motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    United States v. Harold Fields, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Harold Fields' motion to reduce his sentence. Fields had argued for a reduction based on 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), which allows reductions due to retroactive guideline amendments. However, the appellate court found no errors in the district court's ruling and that 3582(c)(2) was not the proper mechanism to assert retroactive application of a Supreme Court case. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments and affirmed the lower court's denial of Fields' motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-11-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-7080

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Harold Fields' motion to reduce his sentence. Fields had argued for a reduction based on 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), which allows reductions due to retroactive guideline amendments. However, the appellate court found no errors in the district court's ruling and that 3582(c)(2) was not the proper mechanism to assert retroactive application of a Supreme Court case. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments and affirmed the lower court's denial of Fields' motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    9 views2 pages

    United States v. Harold Fields, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Harold Fields' motion to reduce his sentence. Fields had argued for a reduction based on 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), which allows reductions due to retroactive guideline amendments. However, the appellate court found no errors in the district court's ruling and that 3582(c)(2) was not the proper mechanism to assert retroactive application of a Supreme Court case. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments and affirmed the lower court's denial of Fields' motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-7080

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    HAROLD FIELDS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    District Judge. (2:89-cr-00251-JAB-1)

    Submitted:

    November 21, 2013

    Decided:

    November 25, 2013

    Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Harold Fields, Appellant Pro Se.


    Robert Michael
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
    for Appellee.

    Hamilton,
    Carolina,

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Harold

    Fields

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence


    reduction.
    error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.
    1

    (M.D.N.C.

    July

    United States v. Fields, No. 2:89-cr-00251-JAB2,

    2013).

    We

    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented


    in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
    the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    We further note that 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) is not the


    appropriate mechanism to assert the retroactive application of
    Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013).

    You might also like