Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Vural, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    Bekir Vural appealed a district court order that granted his motion to reduce his sentence based on a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court sentenced Vural to the high end of the adjusted guideline range. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal. Proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 constitute extensions of the original criminal proceeding. The statute governing appeals from such proceedings does not allow appellate review of a sentencing court's discretion in setting a sentence within the guideline range. As Vural's sole claim challenged the court's discretion, it was unreviewable. The Fourth Circuit denied his motion for counsel and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-08-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6736

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Bekir Vural appealed a district court order that granted his motion to reduce his sentence based on a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court sentenced Vural to the high end of the adjusted guideline range. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal. Proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 constitute extensions of the original criminal proceeding. The statute governing appeals from such proceedings does not allow appellate review of a sentencing court's discretion in setting a sentence within the guideline range. As Vural's sole claim challenged the court's discretion, it was unreviewable. The Fourth Circuit denied his motion for counsel and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Vural, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Bekir Vural appealed a district court order that granted his motion to reduce his sentence based on a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court sentenced Vural to the high end of the adjusted guideline range. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal. Proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 constitute extensions of the original criminal proceeding. The statute governing appeals from such proceedings does not allow appellate review of a sentencing court's discretion in setting a sentence within the guideline range. As Vural's sole claim challenged the court's discretion, it was unreviewable. The Fourth Circuit denied his motion for counsel and dismissed the appeal.

    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. 02-6736

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BEKIR VURAL,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Claude M. Hilton, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-90-189)

    Submitted:

    July 25, 2002

    Decided:

    August 2, 2002

    Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Bekir Vural, Appellant Pro Se.
    Epin Hu Christensen, Special
    Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Bekir Vural appeals from the district courts order granting
    his motion to reduce his sentence based on a retroactive amendment
    to the Sentencing Guidelines, see 18 U.S.C.A. 3582(c)(2) (West
    2000), on the basis that the district court improperly sentenced
    him to the high end of the adjusted guideline range.

    However,

    proceedings under 3582 constitute extensions of the original


    criminal proceeding, see United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309,
    310 (5th Cir. 2000), and the statute governing appeals from such
    proceedings does not provide for appellate review of a sentencing
    courts discretion in setting a sentence anywhere within a properly
    calculated sentencing range, United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d
    789, 794-95 (4th Cir. 1990) (discussing 18 U.S.C. 3742 (1994)).
    Accordingly, because Vurals sole claim on appeal is unreviewable,
    we deny Vurals motion for appointment of counsel and dismiss this
    appeal. 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 in the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like