Filed: Feb. 20, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7436 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY MCCLAIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-96-179) Submitted: February 4, 2003 Decided: February 20, 2003 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthon
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7436 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY MCCLAIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-96-179) Submitted: February 4, 2003 Decided: February 20, 2003 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7436
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY MCCLAIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CR-96-179)
Submitted: February 4, 2003 Decided: February 20, 2003
Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony McClain, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell Barnes Cauthen, III,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony McClain appeals the order of the district court
granting summary judgment to the Government on his motion under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). McClain moved under § 3582, alleging
that Amendment 599 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines mandates a
reduction of his sentence. See USSG App. C, amend. 599 (2000)
(amending USSG § 2K2.4, comment. (n.2)). The district court’s
legal interpretation of Amendment 599 is reviewed de novo. See
United States v. Turner,
59 F.3d 481, 484 (4th Cir. 1995). We have
reviewed the record and conclude that Amendment 599 does not apply
to McClain’s sentence and that he is not entitled to relief under
§ 3582. We therefore affirm the order of the district court. 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