US v. Kelvin Freeman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998726101-2] Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00022-NKM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998848483]. Mailed to: Kelvin Freeman. [11-7440]

Appeal: 11-7440

Doc: 15

Filed: 05/07/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7440

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KELVIN FREEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00022-NKM-1)

Submitted:

April 24, 2012

Decided:

May 7, 2012

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin Freeman, Appellant Pro Se.
United States Attorney, Roanoke,
Huber,
Assistant
United
States
Virginia, for Appellee.

Sharon Burnham, Assistant
Virginia; Ronald Mitchell
Attorney,
Charlottesville,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7440

Doc: 15

Filed: 05/07/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Kelvin

Freeman

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction
of

sentence

based

on

Amendment

Guidelines Manual (2011). ∗
no reversible error.
court’s

750

to

the

U.S.

Sentencing

We have reviewed the record and find

Freeman correctly notes that the district

consideration

of

his

motion

under

Amendment

750

was

premature as the amendment had not yet gone into effect at the
time the court entered the order.

However, because Amendment

750 is now in effect and the district court did not err in
concluding

that

reduction

Freeman

under

does

Amendment

not

750,

qualify
this

for

a

argument

sentence
is

moot.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.
Va.

United States v. Freeman, No. 3:08-cr-00022-NKM-1 (W.D.

Oct.

17,

2011).

appointment of counsel.

We

further

deny

Freeman’s

motion

for

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

∗

To the extent Freeman relied on Amendment 706 to the
Guidelines in his § 3582(c)(2) motion, that amendment was
already taken into consideration at his sentencing, which took
place after the amendment’s effective date of November 1, 2007.

2