US v. David Stewart

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998734395-2]. Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00016-JPB-DJJ-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998842775]. Mailed to: David Stewart. [11-7522]

Appeal: 11-7522

Document: 12

Date Filed: 04/30/2012

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7522

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID ANTHONY STEWART,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00016-JPB-DJJ-1)

Submitted:

April 26, 2012

Decided:

April 30, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Anthony Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7522

Document: 12

Date Filed: 04/30/2012

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
David

Anthony

Stewart

appeals

the

district

court’s

order sua sponte reducing his 121-month sentence to 120 months,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and Amendment 750 to
the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual.

We have reviewed the

record and conclude the district court properly found that it
was limited to reducing Stewart’s sentence by only one month.
See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010)
(explaining that this court reviews de novo the district court’s
“conclusion

on

the

scope

of

its

legal

authority

under

§ 3582(c)(2)”); see also Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct.
2683,

2690–92

authorize

a

(2010)

(clarifying

resentencing,

but

that
rather

§

3582(c)(2)
permits

a

does

not

sentence

reduction within the narrow bounds established by the Sentencing
Commission).

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court.

See United States v. Stewart, No. 3:07–cr–

00016–JPB–DJJ–1 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 1, 2011).
motion for the appointment of counsel.

We deny Stewart’s

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