Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of Marcus Eugene Taylor's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling. The appellate court also noted that Taylor was not entitled to a resentencing hearing or a sentence below the Sentencing Guidelines range. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-02-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-7732

    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 a district court's denial of Marcus Eugene Taylor's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling. The appellate court also noted that Taylor was not entitled to a resentencing hearing or a sentence below the Sentencing Guidelines range. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of Marcus Eugene Taylor's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling. The appellate court also noted that Taylor was not entitled to a resentencing hearing or a sentence below the Sentencing Guidelines range. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 08-7732

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MARCUS EUGENE TAYLOR,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Jerome B. Friedman,
    District Judge. (4:05-cr-00009-WDK-JEB-28)

    Submitted:

    February 19, 2009

    Decided:

    February 24, 2009

    Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Marcus Eugene Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Lisa
    Rae McKeel, Assistant United States Attorneys, Newport News,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Marcus Eugene Taylor appeals a district court order
    denying his motion for a sentence reduction submitted under 18
    U.S.C. 3582(c) (2006).
    district

    courts

    order

    We have reviewed the record and the


    and

    find

    no

    abuse

    of

    discretion.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.


    See United States v. Taylor, No. 4:05-cr-00009-WDK-JEB-28 (E.D.
    Va., filed July 3, 2008; entered July 11, 2008).

    We note Taylor

    was not entitled to a resentencing hearing or a sentence below


    the Sentencing Guidelines.

    See United States v. Dunphy, 551

    F.3d 247, (4th Cir. 2009) ([A] district judge is not authorized
    to reduce a defendants sentence below the amended guideline
    range.).
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like