Filed: Jun. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6325 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RUSSELL JONATHAN CARROLL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (7:11-cr-00070-D-1) Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6325 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RUSSELL JONATHAN CARROLL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (7:11-cr-00070-D-1) Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6325
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RUSSELL JONATHAN CARROLL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (7:11-cr-00070-D-1)
Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell Jonathan Carroll, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Russell Jonathan Carroll appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See United States v. Carroll, No. 7:11-cr-00070-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 25, 2018); see
also Freeman v. United States,
564 U.S. 522, 526 (2011) (recognizing that federal courts
“are forbidden, as a general matter, to modify a term of imprisonment once it has been
imposed,” but recognizing that § 3582(c)(2) provides a narrow exception if a “Guidelines
sentencing range has been lowered by retroactive amendment” by the Sentencing
Commission (internal quotation marks omitted)). We deny Carroll’s motion for a
transcript at government expense. 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
2