From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Dowdell

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Oct 18, 2016
No. 16-6873 (4th Cir. Oct. 18, 2016)

Summary

affirming the denial of prisoner's motion to compel the BOP to move for compassionate release pursuant to § 3582(c) because the court cannot compel BOP to seek a discretionary sentence reduction

Summary of this case from Clark v. Upton

Opinion

No. 16-6873

10-18-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRY L. DOWDELL, Defendant - Appellant.

Terry L. Dowdell, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00107-NKM-1) Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry L. Dowdell, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Terry L. Dowdell appeals the district court's order denying his motion to compel the Bureau of Prisons to move for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (2012). Although the district court treated Dowdell's filing as a substantive § 3582 motion, we conclude that the court's denial of relief nevertheless was proper. Courts may compel action from the Government "only if [it] owes [the movant] a clear nondiscretionary duty." Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984). Federal law vests the Bureau of Prisons with discretion to seek a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) ("[T]he court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, may reduce the term of imprisonment . . . after considering the [relevant] factors. . . ."); United States v. Ellis, 527 F.3d 203, 205 (1st Cir. 2008) (noting that consideration for sentencing relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A) is "a matter of discretion for the Bureau [of Prisons]"). We therefore affirm the district court's denial of relief and deny as moot Dowdell's motion to expedite.

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


Summaries of

United States v. Dowdell

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Oct 18, 2016
No. 16-6873 (4th Cir. Oct. 18, 2016)

affirming the denial of prisoner's motion to compel the BOP to move for compassionate release pursuant to § 3582(c) because the court cannot compel BOP to seek a discretionary sentence reduction

Summary of this case from Clark v. Upton
Case details for

United States v. Dowdell

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRY L. DOWDELL…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Oct 18, 2016

Citations

No. 16-6873 (4th Cir. Oct. 18, 2016)

Citing Cases

United States v. Whitmire

Prior to the passage of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115- 391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018), the Bureau…

United States v. Wallace

Prior to the passage of the Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every…