US v. Michael Ringling
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL HENDRICKS J. RINGLING, Jaysen, a/k/a John Kasell, a/k/a Michael Hendricks
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:91-cr-00041-F-1)
May 21, 2009
May 28, 2009
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Hendricks J. Ringling, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Michael Hendricks J. Ringling appeals the district
court's order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). Ringling contends that
he was entitled to the reduction under Amendment 706 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG"), which lowered the base offense levels for drug offenses involving cocaine base. See
USSG § 2D1.1(c) (2007 & Supp. 2008); USSG App. C Amend. 706. Because Ringling was sentenced on the basis of his status as a career offender and not on the basis of the drug quantity
attributed to him, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ringling's motion. See United
States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1238-39 (10th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?