Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Mack, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Alfred Mack's motion for modification of his sentence. The court found that Mack was sentenced under the career offender guideline rather than the crack cocaine guideline amended by Amendment 706. As such, Mack was not eligible for a sentence reduction based on the amendment. Additionally, the court held that Mack was not entitled to a full resentencing under Booker based on prior precedent. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-05-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6773

    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 Alfred Mack's motion for modification of his sentence. The court found that Mack was sentenced under the career offender guideline rather than the crack cocaine guideline amended by Amendment 706. As such, Mack was not eligible for a sentence reduction based on the amendment. Additionally, the court held that Mack was not entitled to a full resentencing under Booker based on prior precedent. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views3 pages

    United States v. Mack, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Alfred Mack's motion for modification of his sentence. The court found that Mack was sentenced under the career offender guideline rather than the crack cocaine guideline amended by Amendment 706. As such, Mack was not eligible for a sentence reduction based on the amendment. Additionally, the court held that Mack was not entitled to a full resentencing under Booker based on prior precedent. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-6773

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ALFRED EUGENE MACK,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (7:01-cr-00826-HMH-1)

    Submitted:

    April 27, 2009

    Decided:

    May 14, 2009

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alfred Eugene Mack, Appellant Pro Se.


    Elizabeth Jean Howard,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
    for Appellee

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Alfred Eugene Mack appeals the district court=s order
    denying his motion for modification of sentence.

    Mack argues

    that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence


    based on Amendment 706 of the Guidelines, see U.S. Sentencing
    Guidelines Manual 2D1.1(c) (2007 & Supp. 2008); USSG App. C
    Amend. 706, and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
    As we recently observed, Amendment 706 . . . amended 2D1.1 of
    the

    Sentencing

    Guidelines

    by

    reducing

    the

    offense

    levels

    associated with crack cocaine quantities by two levels.

    United

    States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232 (4th Cir. 2009).

    Macks

    sentence was determined by the career offender guideline, USSG


    4B1.1, and was not based on a sentencing range lowered by the
    amendment.

    The

    fact

    that

    the

    district

    court

    reduced

    Macks

    sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) (2006) and USSG 5K1.1 is


    irrelevant to the applicability of Amendment 706.
    F.3d at 234.

    Hood, 556

    Moreover, Macks contentions that the court could

    have considered a sentence below the amended guidelines range


    and that he is entitled to a full resentencing under Booker are
    foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d
    247 (4th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed, 77 U.S.L.W. 3559
    (U.S. Mar. 20, 2009) (No. 08-1185).
    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm the district court.


    2

    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

    You might also like