U.S. v. BANKS, 14-7894. (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20150422121
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 22, 2015
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Anthony Deshawn Banks appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence. In his motion, Banks sought the benefit of Amendment 782 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the base offense levels applicable to most offenses involving crack cocaine. The record reflects that, at sentencing, Banks was held responsible for 133.2 kg. of cra
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Anthony Deshawn Banks appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence. In his motion, Banks sought the benefit of Amendment 782 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the base offense levels applicable to most offenses involving crack cocaine. The record reflects that, at sentencing, Banks was held responsible for 133.2 kg. of crac..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Deshawn Banks appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence. In his motion, Banks sought the benefit of Amendment 782 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the base offense levels applicable to most offenses involving crack cocaine. The record reflects that, at sentencing, Banks was held responsible for 133.2 kg. of crack, and his Guidelines range was 292-365 months. Application of Amendment 782 does not have the effect of lowering his Guidelines range, which remains 292-365 months. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s. (2014). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Banks' motion. See United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating standard of review). We therefore affirm. 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
