Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • United States v. Keith Harris, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Încărcat de

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 vizualizări3 pagini
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving a defendant, Keith Harris, who appealed a district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the district court did not have the authority to further reduce Harris' sentence because his original sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum, not a sentencing guidelines range that was subsequently lowered. The appellate court concluded that § 3582(c) does not authorize reductions when the applicable sentencing guidelines amendment does not actually lower the guidelines range due to other statutory provisions like mandatory minimums.

    Descriere originală:

    Filed: 2012-07-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6269

    Drepturi de autor

    © Public Domain

    Formate disponibile

    PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving a defendant, Keith Harris, who appealed a district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the district court did not have the authority to further reduce Harris' sentence because his original sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum, not a sentencing guidelines range that was subsequently lowered. The appellate court concluded that § 3582(c) does not authorize reductions when the applicable sentencing guidelines amendment does not actually lower the guidelines range due to other statutory provisions like mandatory minimums.

    Drepturi de autor:

    Public Domain
    Descărcați ca PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    10 vizualizări3 pagini

    United States v. Keith Harris, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Încărcat de

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving a defendant, Keith Harris, who appealed a district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the district court did not have the authority to further reduce Harris' sentence because his original sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum, not a sentencing guidelines range that was subsequently lowered. The appellate court concluded that § 3582(c) does not authorize reductions when the applicable sentencing guidelines amendment does not actually lower the guidelines range due to other statutory provisions like mandatory minimums.

    Drepturi de autor:

    Public Domain
    Descărcați ca PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-6269

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    KEITH HARRIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Louise W. Flanagan,
    District Judge. (5:06-cr-00100-FL-2)

    Submitted:

    July 13, 2012

    Decided:

    July 26, 2012

    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,


    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellant.
    Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
    P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Keith Harris appeals a district court order denying
    his

    motion

    for

    3582(c) (2006).

    sentence

    reduction

    pursuant

    to

    18

    U.S.C.

    We affirm.

    This court reviews for abuse of discretion a district


    courts

    decision

    on

    whether

    to

    reduce

    sentence

    under

    3582(c)(2) but reviews de novo a courts conclusion on the


    scope

    of

    States

    its

    v.

    legal

    Munn,

    authority

    595

    F.3d

    under

    183,

    186

    that

    provision.

    (4th

    Cir.

    United

    2010).

    Under

    3582(c)(2), a district court may modify a defendants term of


    imprisonment

    when

    the

    defendant

    is

    sentenced

    to

    term

    of

    imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently


    been lowered by the Sentencing Commission[.]

    Any reduction

    must be consistent with applicable policy statements offered by


    the Sentencing Commission.

    Munn, 595 F.3d at 186.

    Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 1B1.10(2), a


    defendant may not receive a new sentence pursuant to an amended
    Guideline that is lower than the amended Guideline range.

    There

    is an exception for those persons who received a sentence below


    the Guidelines range of imprisonment due to their substantial
    assistance.

    In

    those

    cases,

    reduction

    below

    the

    amended

    Guidelines range that is comparable to the original reduction


    may

    be

    appropriate.

    statutory

    minimum

    Harris

    sentence

    received

    as

    a
    2

    result

    sentence
    of

    the

    below

    the

    Governments

    motion

    under

    18

    U.S.C.

    3553(e)

    (2006)

    and

    U.S.

    Sentencing

    Guidelines Manual 5K1.1.


    A reduction is not authorized under 3582(c)(2) and
    is not consistent with the Guidelines policy statements if the
    applicable amendment does not have the effect of lowering the
    defendants Guidelines range because of the operation of another
    statutory

    provision,

    imprisonment.

    such

    as

    statutory

    minimum

    term

    of

    See USSG 1B1.10(2) cmt. n.1(A).

    We conclude that the district court correctly found it


    was not authorized to reduce Harris sentence further because
    his

    sentence

    was

    based

    on

    the

    statutory

    mandatory

    minimum

    sentence and not on a Guidelines range that was subsequently


    lowered.

    See United States v. Johnson, 564 F.3d 419, 421-23

    (6th Cir. 2009) (starting point for a downward departure under


    3553(e) is the statutory minimum sentence).
    Accordingly,

    we

    affirm.

    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

    S-ar putea să vă placă și