US v. Warren Kuzon

Filing 920090305

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7273 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WARREN KUZON, a/k/a James Brown, a/k/a Shortman, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:00-cr-00765-PMD-1) Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 5, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Warren Kuzon, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Thomas Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South for Appellee. Phillips, Carolina, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Warren Kuzon appeals the district court's orders granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006), and summarily on denying appeal him his motion the the for reconsideration. court erred in Kuzon asserts to that below district amended declining sentence Guidelines range for crack cocaine sentences, contending that a lower sentence would be permitted by Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007), Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). However, this argument is foreclosed by this court's decision in United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence at the high end of the amended Guidelines range. 2004). We See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court. with oral argument because the facts and legal dispense 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?