US v. Stephen Fritz

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cr-00002-JPJ-PMS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999684001].. [15-6729]

Appeal: 15-6729

Doc: 33

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6729

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN ALEXANDER FRITZ,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.
James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:13-cr-00002-JPJ-PMS-1)

Submitted:

October 19, 2015

Decided:

October 22, 2015

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Beck,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Apellant. Anthony P. Giorno, United States Attorney, Jean B.
Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6729

Doc: 33

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Stephen Alexander Fritz appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motions for a sentence
reduction.

We generally review an order granting or denying a

§ 3582(c)(2)

motion

for

abuse

of

discretion.

See

States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004).

United

We review

de novo, however, a district court’s determination of the scope
of its authority under § 3582(c)(2).

United States v. Dunphy,

551 F.3d 247, 250 (4th Cir. 2009).

Here, the district court

correctly concluded that Fritz was not eligible for a sentence
reduction; because Fritz was sentenced as a career offender,
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the
offense levels applicable to drug offenses, did not have the
effect

of

lowering

his

applicable

Guidelines

therefore affirm the district court’s order.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

range.

We

We dispense with

legal
before

contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2