UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6825
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HOWARD CHARLES HUDSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-6948
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HOWARD CHARLES HUDSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-7102
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HOWARD CHARLES HUDSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (2:93-cr-00156)
Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 19, 2007
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard Charles Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
After the district court granted Howard Charles Hudson’s
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motion and reduced his sentence from
life in prison to 360 months, Hudson filed a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a)
motion asserting that district court should have applied the
Sentencing Guidelines as advisory under United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), and that his sentence should have been based
on an offense level of twelve due to the drug quantity stated in
the indictment. The district court denied the Rule 35(a) motion
and also denied Hudson’s motion for reconsideration of that order.
He now appeals from the orders granting his motion for a reduction
in sentence, denying his Rule 35(a) motion, and denying his motion
for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record on appeal and
find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United
States v. Hudson, No. 2:93-cr-00156 (E.D. Va. filed May 16, 2007 &
entered May 17, 2006; June 6, 2007; filed June 27, 2007 & entered
June 28, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -