From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Nichols

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jul 28, 2015
610 F. App'x 306 (4th Cir. 2015)

Summary

affirming denial of a § 3582(c) motion when petitioner's sentence was based on his career offender designation and not drug quantity

Summary of this case from United States v. Logan

Opinion

No. 15-6576

07-28-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT L. NICHOLS, JR., a/k/a Robert L. Nicholas, Jr., Defendant - Appellant.

Robert L. Nichols, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Dominick Salvatore Gerace, II, Heather L. Hart, Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norman Scott Sacks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00199-JRS-1) Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Nichols, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Dominick Salvatore Gerace, II, Heather L. Hart, Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norman Scott Sacks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Robert L. Nichols, Jr., appeals from the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 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 Nichols' Guidelines range was driven by his career offender designation and not by a drug quantity. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010).

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Nichols, No. 3:06-cr-00199-JRS-1 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 30, 2015; entered Mar. 31, 2015). 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. Nichols

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jul 28, 2015
610 F. App'x 306 (4th Cir. 2015)

affirming denial of a § 3582(c) motion when petitioner's sentence was based on his career offender designation and not drug quantity

Summary of this case from United States v. Logan

affirming denial of a § 3582(c) motion when petitioner's sentence was based on his career offender designation and not drug quantity

Summary of this case from United States v. Stewart
Case details for

United States v. Nichols

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT L. NICHOLS, JR.…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jul 28, 2015

Citations

610 F. App'x 306 (4th Cir. 2015)

Citing Cases

United States v. Stewart

Accordingly, Stewart's motion will be denied. See id.; United States v. Nichols, No. 15-6576, 2015 WL…

United States v. Logan

Accordingly, Logan's motion will be denied. See id.; United States v. Nichols, No. 15-6576, 2015 WL 4538933,…