US v. Sironda Sanders

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00020-F-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999753622].. [15-7332]

Appeal: 15-7332

Doc: 6

Filed: 02/11/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7332

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SIRONDA LAVYREE SANDERS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00020-F-1)

Submitted:

January 13, 2016

Decided:

February 11, 2016

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sironda Lavyree Sanders, Appellant Pro Se.
Leslie Katherine
Cooley,
Jennifer
P.
May-Parker,
Assistant
United
States
Attorneys, Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7332

Doc: 6

Filed: 02/11/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Sironda Lavyree Sanders appeals the district court’s order
denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
reduction

based

Guidelines.
error.

on

Amendment

782

to

the

U.S.

Sentencing

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

Accordingly, we affirm.

A district court may reduce a prison term if a defendant’s
Guidelines range has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission

and

the

policy statements.
is

not

reduction

not

consistent

with

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012).

consistent

therefore

is

with

authorized

applicable
under

policy

§ 3582(c)(2)

applicable
A reduction

statements
if

“an

and

amendment

listed in [U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(d) (2014)]
does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable
guideline range.”

USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).

We review a district

court’s decision under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and
its determination regarding the scope of its legal authority de
novo.

United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013).

In deciding whether to modify a prison term pursuant to a
retroactive

amendment

“determine

the

applicable

to

to

amended
the

the

Sentencing

guideline

defendant

if

range
the

Guidelines,
that

first

have

been

would

we

amendment(s)

to

the

guidelines listed in [USSG § 1B1.10(d)] had been in effect at
the time the defendant was sentenced.”
2

USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1);

Appeal: 15-7332

Doc: 6

Filed: 02/11/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010).
such

determination,

the

court

shall

“In making

substitute

only

the

amendments listed in [USSG § 1B1.10(d)] for the corresponding
guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was
sentenced

and

shall

leave

decisions unaffected.”

all

other

guideline

application

USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1).

At sentencing, the district court adopted the presentence
report and found that Sanders was a career offender.

Applying

Amendment 782, her advisory Guidelines range based on her career
offender

status

Commission

has

has
not

not
lowered

changed.
the

Because

range,

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is not authorized.

a

the

reduction

Sentencing
under

18

We therefore affirm the

district court’s order.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3