U.S. v. LEE, 14-6617. (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20140929132
Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 29, 2014
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Ryan Oshay Lee appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction in his sentence based on Amendments 750 and 759 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. We affirm. The district court properly concluded that it lacked authority to grant a sentence reduction under 3582(c)(2) because Lee's Guidelines range was driven by his career offender designation a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Ryan Oshay Lee appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction in his sentence based on Amendments 750 and 759 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. We affirm. The district court properly concluded that it lacked authority to grant a sentence reduction under 3582(c)(2) because Lee's Guidelines range was driven by his career offender designation an..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Ryan Oshay Lee appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction in his sentence based on Amendments 750 and 759 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that it lacked authority to grant a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because Lee's Guidelines range was driven by his career offender designation and not the crack cocaine Guidelines provisions. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010). To the extent that Lee challenges the continued viability of that designation, such a claim is not properly pursued in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (explaining that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize full resentencing, but permits sentence reduction only within narrow bounds established by the Sentencing Commission).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. See United States v. Lee, No. 7:07-cr-00079-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 2014). We deny Lee's motion for the appointment of counsel. 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
