US v. Lenoris Willard

Filing 920090428

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7081 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LENORIS WILLARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00474-CWH-29) Submitted: April 8, 2009 Decided: April 28, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lenoris Willard, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lenoris Willard appeals a district court order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) (2006) based on Amendments 706 and 711 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm. pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with Willard intent to distribute and to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A); 846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2006). Based on a total offense level of thirty-five and a criminal history category of III, his resulting Guidelines range of imprisonment was 210 to 260 months' imprisonment. However, his statutory mandatory minimum sentence was 240 months, which became the low end of the Guidelines sentence. At sentencing, based on the Government's motion for a downward departure, the district court departed downward and sentenced Willard to 100 months' imprisonment. The court subsequently denied Willard's motion for a sentence reduction under 3582(c), finding the statutory mandatory minimum sentence was not affected by the Guidelines amendments. for the reduction minimum The court noted Willard was not eligible he from was subject the to a statutory previously because sentence mandatory which court departed based on his substantial assistance. 2 The legal interpretations of the Sentencing Guidelines and the amendments are reviewed de novo. reviewed for clear error. Factual findings are See United States v. Turner, 59 F.3d We review the denial of a motion 481, 483-84 (4th Cir. 1995). for a reduction in the sentence under 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. Cir. 2004). We without find the to district modify court properly sentence found it was to United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th authority Willard's pursuant Amendments 706 and 711 of the Sentencing Guidelines. States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2009). See United In Hood, the court held that Amendment 706 did not lower the statutory mandatory lowering Likewise, sentencing minimum Hood's because range sentence Guidelines Willard's authorized and did not of have the effect of Id. on a range imprisonment. was not based sentence by U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2D1.1, which Amendments 706 and 711 amended, it was not subject to a modification under 3582(c). at 235-36. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We See Hood, 556 F.3d legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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?