U.S. v. BENNETT, 12-7754. (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20130401062
Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 01, 2013
Latest Update: Apr. 01, 2013
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tommy Lewis Bennett, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 to the crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines. We review the district court's decision for abuse of discretion; however, "[w]e review de novo . . . a court's conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under 3582(c)(2)." United States v. Munn,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tommy Lewis Bennett, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 to the crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines. We review the district court's decision for abuse of discretion; however, "[w]e review de novo . . . a court's conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under 3582(c)(2)." United States v. Munn, 5..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tommy Lewis Bennett, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 to the crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines. We review the district court's decision for abuse of discretion; however, "[w]e review de novo . . . a court's conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2)." United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). Because Bennett's sentence was not based on a Guidelines provision that was subsequently amended, Bennett is ineligible for a reduction via § 3582(c)(2). See id. at 187 ("[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).") (citing United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Bennett, No. 1:08-cr-00369-NCT-2 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 25, 2012). We deny Bennett's motions for appointment of counsel and provision of transcripts.
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.
Source: Leagle
