US v. Jason McCright

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999676513-2]. Originating case number: 4:09-cr-00022-RBS-TEM-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999723072]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-7600]

Appeal: 15-7600

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7600

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JASON L. MCCRIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00022-RBS-TEM-1)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason L. McCright, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham,
II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7600

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
In

November

2014,

Jason

L.

McCright

filed

an

18

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction.

U.S.C.
Because

McCright 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 range.
denied the motion.

The district court therefore

In September 2015, McCright filed a second

§ 3582(c)(2) motion, again seeking the benefit of Amendment 782.
The district court denied relief, and McCright now appeals.
As the district court correctly concluded that it lacked
authority

to

grant

a

motion

to

reconsider

its

ruling

on

a

§ 3582(c)(2) motion, see United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233,
235-36 (4th Cir. 2010), we affirm the district court’s order.
We also deny McCright’s motion to appoint counsel.

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

2