US v. Jeannie Cosby

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:07-cr-00033-MR-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999191062]. Mailed to: Jeannie Cosby. [13-7162]

Appeal: 13-7162

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/11/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7162

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEANNIE LARGENT COSBY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00033-MR-3)

Submitted:

September 4, 2013

Decided:

September 11, 2013

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeannie Largent Cosby, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik,
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Corey F.
Ellis, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7162

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/11/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jeannie

Largent

Cosby

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motions for
reduction

of

sentence

reconsideration.

and

denying

her

subsequent

motion

for

We affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s
decision on whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and
review de novo a court’s conclusion on the scope of its legal
authority under that provision.
183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).

United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d

Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court

may modify a defendant’s term of imprisonment when the defendant
is “sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing
range

that

has

Commission.”

subsequently

been

lowered

by

the

Sentencing

This provision, however, provides Cosby no relief

because her sentence was based on a statutory minimum sentence
and not on a Guidelines range that was subsequently lowered by
the Sentencing Commission.

See United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d

226, 235 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[I]n reducing a sentence under 18
U.S.C.
§ 5K1.1,

§ 3553(e)
the

and

[U.S.

sentencing

Sentencing

court

does

not

Guidelines
apply

a

Manual]

Guidelines

sentencing range.”); see also United States v. Johnson, 564 F.3d
419, 423 (6th Cir. 2009) (stating that the starting point for a
downward

departure

under

§ 3553(e)

2

is

the

statutory

minimum

Appeal: 13-7162

Doc: 7

sentence).

Filed: 09/11/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order

denying Cosby’s § 3582(c)(2) motions.
We further conclude that the district court lacked the
authority to revisit its order denying § 3582(c)(2) relief to
Cosby.

United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235–36 (4th Cir.

2010).

Accordingly, we also affirm the district court’s order

denying Cosby’s motion for reconsideration.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3