US v. Carlton Bashford

Filing 920090827

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6630 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARLTON BASHFORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:91-cr-00332-1) Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David S. Bracken, DAVID S. BRACKEN, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Jeffrey H. Zeeman, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carlton Bashford appeals the district court's order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) district (2006). erred Bashford in asserts to on appeal him that below the the court declining sentence amended Guidelines range for crack cocaine offenses, contending that a lower sentence would be permitted by Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (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.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009). district court did not abuse its discretion Moreover, the in imposing a sentence at the low end of the amended Guidelines range. See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court and we deny the motion for appointment of counsel. 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?