US v. Sharon White

Filing 920090422

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7601 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHARON WHITE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (3:99-cr-00007-jpj-3) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sharon White, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sharon White appeals a district court order granting her motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) (2006). The district court applied Amendment 706 of the Sentencing Guidelines to White's total offense level and reduced her sentence to the low end of the amended Guidelines range of imprisonment. We We affirm. find the district court did not abuse its discretion re-sentencing White to the low end of the amended Guidelines range of imprisonment. F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) United States v. Goines, 357 (stating standard of review). Insofar as White argues the court could have considered an even lower sentence, this claim is foreclosed by United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir. 2009) ("[A] district judge is not authorized to reduce a defendant's sentence below the amended guideline range."). Accordingly, sentence counsel. legal before reduction. we We affirm deny the order granting for White a of her motion appointment We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional contentions the court would 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?