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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?