US v. Marcellus Dancy, III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:07-cr-00042-RBS-TEM-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999722050]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-6065]

Appeal: 15-6065

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6065

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCELLUS LEWIS DANCY, III, a/k/a Sugar Bear,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:07-cr-00042-RBS-TEM-1)

Submitted:

May 5, 2015

Decided:

December 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcellus Lewis Dancy, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Eric Matthew
Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6065

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Marcellus

Lewis

Dancy,

III,

appeals

from

the

district

court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion
to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 782 to the U.S.
Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

(2014).

A

district

court’s

decision on whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is
reviewed for abuse of discretion, while its conclusion on the
scope of its legal authority under that provision is reviewed de
novo.

United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).

Our review of the record reveals that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying Dancy’s motion.
court

plainly

sentence

understood

pursuant

Stewart,

595

and

197,

p.s.,

circumstances

abundantly familiar.

authority

Amendment

F.3d

§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(B),
facts

to

its

but
of

782,

203

see

(4th

declined
Dancy’s

to

to

case,

reduce

United

The

Dancy’s

States

v.

Cir.

2010);

USSG

do

so

based

on

the

with

which

it

was

See United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193,

196-97 (4th Cir. 2013).

Moreover, despite Dancy’s claim to the

contrary, it is well settled that the district court is not
required

to

provide

individualized

reasoning

when

deciding

a

§ 3582(c)(2) motion, see United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724,
728-29 (4th Cir. 2000), and the record does not support Dancy’s
argument

that

the

court

failed

2

to

consider

the

relevant

18

Appeal: 15-6065

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors.

See Smalls, 720 F.3d at 195-

97.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3