Filed: January 23, 2013
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7887
(3:11-cr-00100-REP-1)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLTON A. EDWARDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
O R D E R
The Court amends its opinion filed January 23, 2013, as
follows:
On the cover sheet, district court information section --
the district court docket number is corrected.
For the Court – By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7887
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLTON A. EDWARDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00100-REP-1)
Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 23, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carlton A. Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie L. Mickelson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlton A. Edwards appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion seeking to compel the Government to file a
motion for reduction of sentence in his case. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. See Wade v. United
States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-87 (1992) (describing the scope of the
prosecution’s discretion in filing such a motion); United
States v. Butler, 272 F.3d 683, 686-87 (4th Cir. 2001) (same);
see also United States v. LeRose, 219 F.3d 335, 341-43 (4th Cir.
2000) (evidentiary hearing not required unless defendant makes a
“‘substantial threshold showing’” that the prosecution’s refusal
to file the requested motion resulted from improper or suspect
motives (quoting Wade, 504 U.S. at 186)). Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court. 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