Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Bobby Smith, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    Bobby Smith appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that 3582(c)(2) does not allow defendants sentenced before the Fair Sentencing Act to benefit from its new minimums, and that the Constitution does not require retroactive application of the Act. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-03-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-7714

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Bobby Smith appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that 3582(c)(2) does not allow defendants sentenced before the Fair Sentencing Act to benefit from its new minimums, and that the Constitution does not require retroactive application of the Act. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    0 views2 pages

    United States v. Bobby Smith, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Bobby Smith appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that 3582(c)(2) does not allow defendants sentenced before the Fair Sentencing Act to benefit from its new minimums, and that the Constitution does not require retroactive application of the Act. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-7714

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    BOBBY SMITH,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:09-cr-00238-BO-1)

    Submitted:

    February 27, 2014

    Decided:

    March 4, 2014

    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Bobby Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, OFFICE OF THE


    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Bobby Smith appeals the district courts order denying
    his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2)
    (2012).
    error.
    United

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible


    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts order.
    States

    v.

    Black,

    737

    F.3d

    280,

    287

    (4th

    Cir.

    See
    2013)

    (holding that 3582(c)(2) does not provide means to apply Fair


    Sentencing Act (FSA) minimums to defendants sentenced before
    FSAs effective date); United States v. Blewett, __ F.3d __,
    2013 WL 6231727, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2013) (en banc) (Nos.
    12-5226, 12-5582) (holding that (1) the [FSA]s new mandatory
    minimums do not apply to defendants sentenced before it took
    effect;

    (2) 3582(c)(2)

    does

    not

    provide

    vehicle

    for

    circumventing that interpretation; and (3) the Constitution does


    not provide a basis for blocking it).

    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

    You might also like