The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-8037•United States of America v. Christopher Mitchell, a/k/a Hassan Jones, a/k/a Q Ili-Yaas Haakeem Farrakhan-Muhammad
15-8037Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 28, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-8037
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, a/k/a Hassan Jones, a/k/a Q Ili-Yaas
Haakeem Farrakhan-Muhammad,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:90-cr-00020-2)
Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Candace Haley Bunn, John
J. Frail, Steven Loew, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Mitchell appeals the district court’s order
granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion in part by
lowering his base and total offense levels by two levels but
denying his motion in part by deeming him ineligible for a sentence
reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See United States v. Mitchell, No. 2:90-cr-00020-
2 (S.D. W. Va. Dec. 1, 2015). We further deny Mitchell’s motion
for a transcript of his sentencing proceeding at the Government’s
expense because the record permits us to determine the drug weight
relied on by the district court at sentencing. 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.