Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Dujuan Farrow's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Farrow was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for a crack cocaine offense, so he was ineligible for a sentence reduction based on later amendments to the crack cocaine sentencing guidelines. The appellate court also declined to consider any new issues raised in Farrow's filings that were not contained in his original motion to the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-03-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-7672

    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 denial of Dujuan Farrow's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Farrow was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for a crack cocaine offense, so he was ineligible for a sentence reduction based on later amendments to the crack cocaine sentencing guidelines. The appellate court also declined to consider any new issues raised in Farrow's filings that were not contained in his original motion to the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Farrow, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Dujuan Farrow's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Farrow was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for a crack cocaine offense, so he was ineligible for a sentence reduction based on later amendments to the crack cocaine sentencing guidelines. The appellate court also declined to consider any new issues raised in Farrow's filings that were not contained in his original motion to the district court.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 10-7672

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DUJUAN FARROW,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Robert E. Payne, Senior
    District Judge. (3:04-cr-00278-REP-2)

    Submitted:

    March 15, 2011

    Before MOTZ and


    Circuit Judge.

    WYNN,

    Decided:

    Circuit

    Judges,

    and

    March 18, 2011

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Dujuan Farrow, Appellant


    Assistant United States
    Appellee.

    Pro Se.
    Attorney,

    Angela Mastandrea-Miller,
    Richmond, Virginia, for

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Dujuan

    Farrow

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

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


    reduction based on an amendment to the crack cocaine sentencing
    guidelines.

    We review a district courts decision on whether to

    reduce a sentence under that provision for abuse of discretion;


    however, we review de novo a courts conclusion on the scope of
    its legal authority under 3582(c).

    United States v. Munn, 595

    F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010).


    Section 3582(c)(2) is inapplicable to Farrow because
    he was not sentenced based on a sentencing range that was
    subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission.
    the

    district

    statutory

    court

    mandatory

    properly
    minimum

    found,
    term

    of

    he

    was

    Rather, as

    sentenced

    imprisonment.

    to

    the

    Farrows

    sentence is therefore not subject to reduction via 3582(c)(2).


    See Munn, 595 F.3d at 187 ([A] defendant who was convicted of a
    crack offense but sentenced pursuant to a mandatory statutory
    minimum

    sentence

    is

    ineligible

    for

    reduction

    under

    3582(c)(2).); United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 235-36


    (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 321 (2009).

    To the extent

    that Farrows appellate filings raise issues not contained in


    his motion to the district court, we decline to entertain them.
    Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).

    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts order.


    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like