Filed: Nov. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7404 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. NORRIS JUANDRON BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:13-cr-00843-RBH-2) Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norris Juandron Brown, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7404 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. NORRIS JUANDRON BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:13-cr-00843-RBH-2) Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norris Juandron Brown, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7404
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
NORRIS JUANDRON BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:13-cr-00843-RBH-2)
Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Norris Juandron Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Norris Juandron Brown appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
reduction. We generally review an order granting or denying a
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Goines,
357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004). We review
de novo, however, a district court’s determination of the scope
of its authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Dunphy,
551 F.3d 247, 250 (4th Cir. 2009). Here, because Brown was
sentenced as a career offender, Amendment 782 to the Sentencing
Guidelines, which reduced the offense levels applicable to drug
offenses, did not have the effect of lowering his applicable
Guidelines range. We therefore affirm the district court’s
order. 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 in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2