US v. Andre Manigault

Filing 920081027

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6832 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDRE MANIGAULT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:95-cr-00488-JFA-1) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 27, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Manigault, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andre denying his Manigault for a appeals sentence the district court's 18 order U.S.C. motion reduction under 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.* United States v. Manigault, No. 3:95-cr- 00488-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Apr. 25, 2008). 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 We note a typographical error in the district court's order on page one in the recitation of Manigault's advisory guideline calculation. The district court intended to state that Manigault's base offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines was 38, not 3, for his violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (2000). This typographical error does not affect, however, the district court's considered reasoning in denying Manigault's motion for sentence reduction. - 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?