From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Newman

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jun 21, 2011
436 F. App'x 223 (4th Cir. 2011)

Summary

rejecting a motion to modify a sentence because Amendment 742 "is not among those listed in USSG § 1B1.10(c) . . . and is therefore not retroactively applicable"

Summary of this case from United States v. Gutierrez

Opinion

No. 11-6260.

Submitted: June 3, 2011.

Decided: June 21, 2011.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:04-cr-01127-GRA-8).

Cory Newman, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Ann Fisher, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Cory Newman appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduction of sentence. We review an order granting or denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). A district court abuses its discretion if it fails or refuses to exercise discretion, or if it relies on an erroneous factual or legal premise. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323 (4th Cir. 2008).

Under § 3582(c)(2), the district court may modify the term of imprisonment "of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered," if the amendment is listed in the Guidelines as retroactively applicable. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § lB1.10(a)(2)(A), (c), p.s. (2010). Newman seeks a reduction pursuant to Amendment 742. USSG App'x C Supp., Amend. 742. This Amendment is not among those listed in USSG § lB1.10(c), p.s., and is therefore not retroactively applicable. See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 249 n. 2 (4th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Newman

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jun 21, 2011
436 F. App'x 223 (4th Cir. 2011)

rejecting a motion to modify a sentence because Amendment 742 "is not among those listed in USSG § 1B1.10(c) . . . and is therefore not retroactively applicable"

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

U.S. v. Newman

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cory NEWMAN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jun 21, 2011

Citations

436 F. App'x 223 (4th Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

United States v. Gutierrez

In short, Defendant's motion for resentencing under § 3582 fails because Amendment 742 is not retroactive.…

United States v. Floyd

Because Defendant is challenging his sentence, and also challenges the effectiveness of his counsel's…