Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Marvin Hampton, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving defendant Marvin Hampton's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the sentencing guidelines. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Hampton was ineligible for a sentence reduction because the mandatory minimum sentence he received for his crack cocaine offense was not affected by the drug quantity calculation or Amendment 750. As the sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum, not the guidelines, it could not be reduced through 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-06-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6437

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving defendant Marvin Hampton's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the sentencing guidelines. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Hampton was ineligible for a sentence reduction because the mandatory minimum sentence he received for his crack cocaine offense was not affected by the drug quantity calculation or Amendment 750. As the sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum, not the guidelines, it could not be reduced through 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Marvin Hampton, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving defendant Marvin Hampton's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the sentencing guidelines. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Hampton was ineligible for a sentence reduction because the mandatory minimum sentence he received for his crack cocaine offense was not affected by the drug quantity calculation or Amendment 750. As the sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum, not the guidelines, it could not be reduced through 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).

    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. 12-6437

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MARVIN HAMPTON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
    Margaret B. Seymour, Chief
    District Judge. (5:05-cr-00609-MBS-1)

    Submitted:

    June 21, 2012

    Decided:

    June 26, 2012

    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Marvin Hampton, Appellant Pro Se.


    Jane Barrett Taylor,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Marvin

    Hampton

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction


    in his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing
    Guidelines Manual (2010).

    We conclude that the district court

    properly determined that Hampton was ineligible for a sentence


    reduction because the sentencing range for his crack cocaine
    offense

    was

    determined

    by

    the

    applicable

    statutory

    mandatory

    minimum, not a calculation of the drug quantity attributable to


    Hampton, and thus was not impacted by Amendment 750.
    States

    v.

    Munn,

    595

    F.3d

    183,

    187

    (4th

    Cir.

    See United
    2010)

    ([A]

    defendant who was convicted of a crack offense but sentenced


    pursuant to a mandatory statutory minimum sentence is ineligible
    for a reduction under 3582(c)(2).).
    the district courts order.

    Accordingly, we affirm

    See United States v. Hampton, No.

    5:05-cr-00609-MBS-1 (D.S.C. Feb. 28, 2012).


    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    We dispense with

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like