Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting Anthony Robinson's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Robinson's motion for a sentence reduction. Additionally, the appellate court noted that while Robinson argued the district court could have reduced his sentence even lower, precedent establishes that a district court cannot reduce a defendant's sentence below the amended guideline range. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-05-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-7679

    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 the district court's order granting Anthony Robinson's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Robinson's motion for a sentence reduction. Additionally, the appellate court noted that while Robinson argued the district court could have reduced his sentence even lower, precedent establishes that a district court cannot reduce a defendant's sentence below the amended guideline range. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting Anthony Robinson's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). The appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Robinson's motion for a sentence reduction. Additionally, the appellate court noted that while Robinson argued the district court could have reduced his sentence even lower, precedent establishes that a district court cannot reduce a defendant's sentence below the amended guideline range. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    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. 08-7679

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ANTHONY ROBINSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Albert V. Bryan, Jr.,
    Senior District Judge. (1:91-cr-00161-1)

    Submitted:

    May 21, 2009

    Decided:

    May 26, 2009

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Anthony Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony

    Robinson

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    granting his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) (2006) motion.

    order

    We find the

    district did not abuse its discretion in granting Robinsons


    motion for a sentence reduction. United States v. Goines, 357
    F.3d

    469,

    478

    (4th

    Cir.

    2004)

    (stating

    standard

    of

    review).

    Insofar as Robinson suggests the court could have considered an


    even lower sentence below the Guidelines sentencing range, this
    claim is foreclosed by United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247,
    256 (4th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed, 77 U.S.L.W. 3559
    (U.S. Mar. 20, 2009) ([A] district judge is not authorized to
    reduce

    range.).
    error.

    defendants

    sentence

    below

    the

    amended

    guideline

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible


    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.

    United States v. Robinson, No. 1:91-cv-00161-1

    (E.D.

    14,

    Va.

    July

    2008).

    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 the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like