Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Anthony Banks, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    1) Anthony Deshawn Banks appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 which reduced crack cocaine offense levels. 2) At his original sentencing, Banks was held responsible for 133.2 kg of crack cocaine, resulting in a guidelines range of 292-365 months. 3) Amendment 782 would not lower Banks' guidelines range, which remains 292-365 months. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Banks' motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-04-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7894

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Anthony Deshawn Banks appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 which reduced crack cocaine offense levels. 2) At his original sentencing, Banks was held responsible for 133.2 kg of crack cocaine, resulting in a guidelines range of 292-365 months. 3) Amendment 782 would not lower Banks' guidelines range, which remains 292-365 months. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Banks' motion.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Anthony Banks, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Anthony Deshawn Banks appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 which reduced crack cocaine offense levels. 2) At his original sentencing, Banks was held responsible for 133.2 kg of crack cocaine, resulting in a guidelines range of 292-365 months. 3) Amendment 782 would not lower Banks' guidelines range, which remains 292-365 months. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Banks' motion.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7894

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    ANTHONY DESHAWN BANKS, a/k/a Eight,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Rebecca Beach Smith,
    Chief District Judge. (4:06-cr-00042-RBS-JEB-2)

    Submitted:

    April 13, 2015

    Decided:

    April 22, 2015

    Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Anthony
    Deshawn
    Banks,
    Appellant
    Pro
    Se.
    Robert
    Edward
    Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony Deshawn Banks appeals the district courts order
    denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction
    of

    sentence.

    In

    his

    motion,

    Banks

    sought

    the

    benefit

    of

    Amendment 782 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced


    the base offense levels applicable to most offenses involving
    crack cocaine.

    The record reflects that, at sentencing, Banks

    was held responsible for 133.2 kg. of crack, and his Guidelines
    range was 292-365 months.

    Application of Amendment 782 does not

    have the effect of lowering his Guidelines range, which remains


    292-365

    months.

    See

    U.S.

    Sentencing

    1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s. (2014).


    the

    district

    court

    Banks motion.
    (4th

    Cir.

    affirm.
    legal
    before

    did

    not

    Guidelines

    Manual

    Accordingly, we conclude that

    abuse

    its

    discretion

    in

    denying

    See United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195

    2013)

    (stating

    standard

    of

    review).

    We

    therefore

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like