US v. John Wright
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN LENWOOD WRIGHT, a/k/a June Bug, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:02-cr-00539-CMH-1)
February 19, 2009
February 23, 2009
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Lenwood Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Ann Riley, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: John Lenwood Wright appeals the district court's
denial of his motion for reconsideration of the district court's order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for
reduction of sentence and reducing his sentence to 135 months' imprisonment. Wright contends that he is eligible for a full
resentencing, beyond the limited sentence reduction granted him by the district court under Amendment 706 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines levels for Manual drug ("USSG"), offenses which reduced cocaine the base offense See USSG
§ 2D1.1(c) (2008); USSG App. C Amend. 706.
Wright argues that
USSG § 1B1.10, which limits the extent by which a court may reduce a defendant's sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, runs afoul of the Supreme Court's remedial holding in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
However, we expressly rejected
this contention in United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 252-55 (4th Cir. 2009). district court We have reviewed the record and find that the did not abuse its discretion in declining to
grant a further reduction in Wright's sentence. affirm the judgment of the district court. oral argument because in the the facts and legal before
Accordingly, we We dispense with contentions the court are and
argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?