US v. Roswell Bowman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00010-MR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999832776]. Mailed to: Roswell Bowman. [15-7722]

Appeal: 15-7722

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7722

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROSWELL BOWMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00010-MR-1)

Submitted:

May 19, 2016

Decided:

May 25, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roswell Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. C. Nicks Williams, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7722

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Roswell Bowman appeals the district court’s order denying
his

18

U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2)

(2012)

reduction based on Amendment 782.
and find no reversible error.

motion

for

a

sentence

We have reviewed the record

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

therefore

is

consistent

with

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012).

consistent
not

reduction

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 ruling as to 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 to the Sentencing Guidelines, the first
step is to “determine the amended guideline range that would
have been applicable to the defendant if the amendment(s) to the
guidelines listed in [USSG § 1B1.10(d)] had been in effect at
the time the defendant was sentenced.”

USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1);

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010).
2

“In making

Appeal: 15-7722

such

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/25/2016

determination,

the

Pg: 3 of 5

court

shall

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

USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1).

application

If the district

court had authority to impose a sentence below any statutorily
required minimum sentence pursuant to a government motion based
on

substantial

assistance,

the

amended

determined without regard to USSG § 5G1.1.

Guidelines

range

is

USSG § 1B1.10(c).

At Bowman’s original sentencing, the district court adopted
the

final

presentence

findings of fact.

report

and

accepted

its

contents

as

Thus, the court found that he was responsible

for 375.26 grams of cocaine base and 45.01 grams of cocaine.
The court found that his Guidelines range before application of
USSG § 5G1.1 was 70 to 87 months in prison on count two plus a
consecutive

sentence

of

60

months

in

prison

on

count

three.

After applying the statutorily required mandatory minimum, his
Guidelines sentence was 240 months plus 60 months.
The Government moved for a sentence below the mandatory
minimum and Guidelines range pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and
USSG

§ 5K1.1

based

on

Bowman’s

substantial

assistance.

The

Government requested a sentence of 120 plus 60 months, totaling
180

months.

Bowman

asked

the

district

court

to

consider

a

sentence within the Guidelines range that would apply without
3

Appeal: 15-7722

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/25/2016

the mandatory minimum.

Pg: 4 of 5

The court sentenced Bowman to 87 months

plus 60 months, totaling 147 months.
After

reviewing

his

case

to

Bowman did not appeal.
determine

whether

he

was

eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782, Bowman’s
counsel filed a notice with the district court that counsel had
concluded he was not eligible for a reduction.
officer came to the same conclusion.

The probation

Under Amendment 782, they

determined that Bowman’s Guidelines range on count two before
application of USSG § 5G1.1 is 70 to 87 months, which is the
same range that was originally determined by the district court.
Bowman

filed

the

instant

pro

se

motion

for

a

sentence

reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782.
In addition to claiming that he was eligible for a reduction, he
argued that the district court had not made any specific finding
of drug quantity at his original sentencing hearing, and the
court should hold an evidentiary hearing to do so.

He also

argued he should be permitted to object to the drug quantities
that were stated in the presentence report at the hearing.
The

district

court

denied

Bowman’s

§ 3582(c)(2)

motion,

explaining that “[t]he application of Amendment 782 provides no
change in the guideline calculations in this case.”

On appeal,

Bowman contends the court should have “granted an evidentiary
hearing to make specific factual findings of drug quantity for
the purpose of determining [his] eligibility for [a] sentence
4

Appeal: 15-7722

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/25/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782.”
disagree.
not

We

Proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) and USSG § 1B1.10 “do

constitute

§ 1B1.10(a)(3);

a

full

see

resentencing

also

Dillon,

of

560

the
U.S.

defendant.”
at

826

USSG

(“Congress

intended to authorize only a limited adjustment to an otherwise
final

sentence

and

not

a

plenary

resentencing

proceeding.”).

While a district court may, in its discretion, make additional
findings in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, it is not obligated to do
so.

Mann, 709 F.3d at 306-07.

After reviewing the record, we

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
this case by not making additional drug quantity findings.
Accordingly,
dispense

with

contentions

are

we

oral

affirm

the

argument

adequately

district

because

presented

in

court’s

the
the

facts

order.

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5