US v. Marcus Sifford

Filing 920090127

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6861 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCUS SIFFORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:96-cr-00134-FDW-2) Submitted: January 20, 2009 Decided: January 27, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus Sifford, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marcus Sifford appeals the district court's order granting his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) (2006), and reducing his sentence to 185 months of imprisonment. a 151-month Sifford had contended that he was entitled to pursuant to Amendment 706 of the U.S. sentence Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG"), which lowered the base offense levels for drug offenses involving cocaine base. USSG 2D1.1(c) (2008); USSG App. C Amend. 706. We See have reviewed the record and Sifford's contentions on appeal and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a further reduction in Sifford's sentence. See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Sifford, No. 3:96-cr-00134-FDW-2 (W.D.N.C. May 13, 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 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?