Filed: Jul. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6130 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SONJA CARTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00383-JAG-1) Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sonja Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Si
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6130 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SONJA CARTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00383-JAG-1) Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sonja Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6130
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SONJA CARTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00383-JAG-1)
Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sonja Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sonja Carter appeals the district court’s order
denying her motion for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We conclude that the district court
properly determined that Carter was ineligible for a sentence
reduction because her sentencing range was determined by her
career offender designation. See United States v. Munn,
595
F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.
Carter, No. 3:07-cr-00383-JAG-1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 4, 2012). 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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2