US v. Donnie Howell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:94-cr-00056-H-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998438855] [10-6803]

Download PDF
US v. Donnie Howell Doc. 0 Case: 10-6803 Document: 9 Date Filed: 10/05/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6803 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONNIE KEITH HOWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00056-H-1) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 5, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donnie Keith Howell, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-6803 Document: 9 Date Filed: 10/05/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Donnie Keith Howell appeals the district court's orders denying his motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006) and denying his motion for reconsideration. failing to Howell argues that the district court erred by his sentence App. based C. upon U.S. Sentencing which reduce Manual Guidelines ("USSG") Amend. 706 (2007), lowered the offense level for sentences involving crack cocaine. Howell's sentence was determined by the career offender guideline and was not based on a sentencing range lowered by the amendment. Cir. 2009). dispense See United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232 (4th Accordingly, we affirm district court's orders. oral argument because the facts and We with 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?