US v. Norris Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:13-cr-00843-RBH-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999705860].. [15-7404]

Appeal: 15-7404

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7404

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
NORRIS JUANDRON BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:13-cr-00843-RBH-2)

Submitted:

November 19, 2015

Decided:

November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norris Juandron Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7404

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Norris Juandron Brown appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion 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, because Brown 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
order.
legal

range.

We

therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

2