U.S. v. DUNN, 15-7494. (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20151218132
Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2015
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Darnell Michael Dunn appeals the district court's orders granting his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2)(2012) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Because the Government's substantial assistance motion was based on U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 5K1.1 and not 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) (2012), the distric
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Darnell Michael Dunn appeals the district court's orders granting his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2)(2012) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Because the Government's substantial assistance motion was based on U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 5K1.1 and not 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) (2012), the district..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Darnell Michael Dunn appeals the district court's orders granting his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)(2012) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Because the Government's substantial assistance motion was based on U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 and not 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2012), the district court lacked authority to reduce Dunn's sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum. Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120, 126-27 (1996); United States v. Allen, 450 F.3d 565, 568-70 (4th Cir. 2006). Further, as the district court correctly noted, it was without authority to rule on Dunn's motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. 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
