Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Cory Newman, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views3 pages
    Cory Newman appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The appellate court determined that the sentencing amendment Newman relied upon, Amendment 742, is not listed as retroactively applicable in the Guidelines manual. Therefore, Newman was not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). The appellate court dispensed with oral argument and affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-06-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-6260

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Cory Newman appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The appellate court determined that the sentencing amendment Newman relied upon, Amendment 742, is not listed as retroactively applicable in the Guidelines manual. Therefore, Newman was not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). The appellate court dispensed with oral argument and affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Cory Newman, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Cory Newman appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The appellate court determined that the sentencing amendment Newman relied upon, Amendment 742, is not listed as retroactively applicable in the Guidelines manual. Therefore, Newman was not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). The appellate court dispensed with oral argument and affirmed the district court's judgment.

    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. 11-6260

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    CORY NEWMAN,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville.
    G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (6:04-cr-01127-GRA-8)

    Submitted:

    June 3, 2011

    Decided:

    June 21, 2011

    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Cory Newman, Appellant Pro Se.


    Carrie Ann Fisher, Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Greenville,
    South
    Carolina,
    for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Cory Newman appeals the district courts order denying
    his

    18

    U.S.C.

    sentence.

    3582(c)(2)

    (2006)

    motion

    for

    reduction

    of

    We review an order granting or denying a 3582(c)(2)

    motion for abuse of discretion.

    United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d

    183,

    186

    (4th

    Cir.

    2010).

    district

    court

    abuses

    its

    discretion if it fails or refuses to exercise discretion, or if


    it relies on an erroneous factual or legal premise.

    DIRECTV,

    Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323 (4th Cir. 2008).


    Under 3582(c)(2), the district court may modify the
    term of imprisonment of a defendant who has been sentenced . .
    .

    based

    on

    lowered,

    if

    sentencing

    the

    amendment

    retroactively applicable.
    Sentencing
    (2010).

    range

    Guidelines

    is

    that
    listed

    has
    in

    subsequently
    the

    been

    Guidelines

    as

    18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2); see also U.S.

    Manual

    1B1.10(a)(2)(A),

    (c),

    p.s.

    Newman seeks a reduction pursuant to Amendment 742.

    USSG Appx C Supp., Amend. 742.

    This Amendment is not among

    those listed in USSG 1B1.10(c), p.s., and is therefore not


    retroactively applicable.

    See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d

    247, 249 n.2 (4th Cir. 2009).


    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court.
    legal

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like