Filed: Aug. 02, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6736 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BEKIR VURAL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-189) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 2, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bekir Vural, Appellant Pro Se. Epin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6736 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BEKIR VURAL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-189) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 2, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bekir Vural, Appellant Pro Se. Epin H..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6736
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BEKIR VURAL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CR-90-189)
Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 2, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bekir Vural, Appellant Pro Se. Epin Hu Christensen, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bekir Vural appeals from the district court’s order granting
his motion to reduce his sentence based on a retroactive amendment
to the Sentencing Guidelines, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West
2000), on the basis that the district court improperly sentenced
him to the high end of the adjusted guideline range. However,
proceedings under § 3582 constitute extensions of the original
criminal proceeding, see United States v. Alvarez,
210 F.3d 309,
310 (5th Cir. 2000), and the statute governing appeals from such
proceedings “does not provide for appellate review of a sentencing
court’s discretion in setting a sentence anywhere within a properly
calculated sentencing range,” United States v. Porter,
909 F.2d
789, 794-95 (4th Cir. 1990) (discussing 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (1994)).
Accordingly, because Vural’s sole claim on appeal is unreviewable,
we deny Vural’s motion for appointment of counsel and dismiss this
appeal. 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2