Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Jason McCright, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jason McCright's second motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). McCright, who was sentenced as a career offender, sought the benefit of Amendment 782 which reduced drug offense levels, but it did not lower his applicable guidelines range. The district court correctly concluded it lacked authority to grant a motion to reconsider its ruling on a prior § 3582(c)(2) motion. The Court of Appeals also denied McCright's motion to appoint counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-12-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7600

    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 Jason McCright's second motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). McCright, who was sentenced as a career offender, sought the benefit of Amendment 782 which reduced drug offense levels, but it did not lower his applicable guidelines range. The district court correctly concluded it lacked authority to grant a motion to reconsider its ruling on a prior § 3582(c)(2) motion. The Court of Appeals also denied McCright's motion to appoint counsel.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Jason McCright, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jason McCright's second motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). McCright, who was sentenced as a career offender, sought the benefit of Amendment 782 which reduced drug offense levels, but it did not lower his applicable guidelines range. The district court correctly concluded it lacked authority to grant a motion to reconsider its ruling on a prior § 3582(c)(2) motion. The Court of Appeals also denied McCright's motion to appoint counsel.

    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. 15-7600

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    JASON L. MCCRIGHT,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Rebecca Beach Smith,
    Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00022-RBS-TEM-1)

    Submitted:

    December 17, 2015

    Decided:

    December 22, 2015

    Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jason L. McCright, 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:
    In

    November

    2014,

    Jason

    L.

    McCright

    filed

    an

    18

    3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction.

    U.S.C.
    Because

    McCright was sentenced as a career offender, Amendment 782 to


    the

    Sentencing

    Guidelines,

    which

    reduced

    the

    offense

    levels

    applicable to drug offenses, did not have the effect of lowering


    his applicable Guidelines range.
    denied the motion.

    The district court therefore

    In September 2015, McCright filed a second

    3582(c)(2) motion, again seeking the benefit of Amendment 782.


    The district court denied relief, and McCright now appeals.
    As the district court correctly concluded that it lacked
    authority

    to

    grant

    motion

    to

    reconsider

    its

    ruling

    on

    3582(c)(2) motion, see United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233,


    235-36 (4th Cir. 2010), we affirm the district courts order.
    We also deny McCrights motion to appoint counsel.

    We dispense

    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this

    court

    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like