US v. Keiron Bryant

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:05-cr-00082-AWA-JEB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998987522]. Mailed to: Bryant. [12-7034]

Download PDF
Appeal: 12-7034 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/26/2012 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7034 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEIRON WAYNE BRYANT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:05-cr-00082-AWA-JEB-1) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Before TRAXLER, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: November 26, 2012 and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keiron Wayne Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 12-7034 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/26/2012 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Keiron Wayne Bryant appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion to reduce his sentence Guidelines conclude pursuant Manual the to Amendment (2010). district We court 750 have to the reviewed properly found U.S. Sentencing the record and it lacked the authority to reduce Bryant’s 120-month sentence, which was the statutory mandatory minimum. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A] defendant who was convicted of a crack offense but sentenced pursuant to a mandatory statutory minimum sentence is ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2).”). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Bryant, No. 2:05- cr-00082-AWA-JEB-1 (E.D. Va. May 30, 2012). oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal contentions are before this and court 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?