US v. Lonnie Dozier

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:03-cr-00372-TLW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998486788] [10-4335]

US v. Lonnie Dozier

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4335 Document: 22

Date Filed: 12/17/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4335 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LONNIE LAMONT DOZIER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:03-cr-00372-TLW-1) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 17, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Mackenzie, BARRETT-MACKENZIE, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Ann Fisher, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4335 Document: 22

Date Filed: 12/17/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Lonnie Lamont Dozier appeals the district court's

grant in part of the government's Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion to reduce his sentence for substantial assistance. Appellate

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court's chosen method of reducing the sentence constituted a violation of law or an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines. Dozier was

notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. For the reasons explained below, we

affirm the amended judgment. "[A]ppeals governed Hartwell, States v. by 18 from rulings on Rule 35(b) motions States are v.

U.S.C. F.3d

§ 3742 712

[(2006)]."

United

448

707, 64

(4th Cir. 2006) 149

(citing

United This

Pridgen,

F.3d

147,

(4th Cir. 1995)).

court does not have "jurisdiction to review the extent of the district court's downward departure, except in instances in

which the departure decision resulted in a sentence imposed in violation of law or resulted from an incorrect application of the Guidelines." United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324

(4th Cir. 1995). If a defendant alleges that his otherwise final

sentence was imposed in violation of law, however, he "may make that claim in appealing a ruling 2 on a Rule 35(b) motion."

Case: 10-4335 Document: 22

Date Filed: 12/17/2010

Page: 3

Hartwell, 448 F.3d at 713. of discretion. In

Such a claim is reviewed for abuse

See Pridgen, 64 F.3d at 150. Anders brief, appellate counsel states that

the

Dozier takes the position that the district court's refusal to structure the reduction by reducing the offense level "resulted in a sentence imposed in violation of law and/or resulted from an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines." claim is one that we have jurisdiction to review. This

However,

because Dozier did not preserve this claim for appeal, it is reviewed for plain error. 732-37 (1993). We conclude that the district court did not plainly err in choosing to reduce Dozier's total sentence by months United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,

rather than by reducing the offense level and imposing sentence within a revised guideline range. abuse its discretion by reducing Therefore, the court did not Dozier's sentence in this

manner.

Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in

denying his motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, district court. we affirm the sentence imposed by the

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the

entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. This court requires that counsel inform Dozier, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Dozier requests that a petition be filed, 3

Case: 10-4335 Document: 22

Date Filed: 12/17/2010

Page: 4

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof We dispense with oral argument because

was served on Dozier.

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. AFFIRMED

4