US v. Chester Griffith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00388-JFM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999738635]. Mailed to: Chester Griffiths. [15-7808]

Appeal: 15-7808

Doc: 9

Filed: 01/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7808

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHESTER GRIFFITHS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00388-JFM-1)

Submitted:

January 14, 2016

Decided:

January 20, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chester C. Griffiths, Appellant Pro Se.
Rod J. Rosenstein,
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7808

Doc: 9

Filed: 01/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM
Chester
denying

Griffiths

his

motion

appeals

for

a

the

sentence

district
reduction

court’s
under

18

order
U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) pursuant to Guidelines Amendment 782.

For

the reasons that follow, we affirm.
A

district

sentence

of

court

is

imprisonment

authorized
under

to

reduce

a

§ 3582(c)(2)

defendant’s

only

if

the

defendant’s sentence was “based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission” through
a

retroactively

§ 3582(c)(2);

applicable
see

Guidelines

U.S.

§ 1B1.10(a)(1) (2006).

amendment.

Sentencing

18

Guidelines

U.S.C.
Manual

As the court determined at sentencing,

Griffiths’ Guidelines range was 120 months’ imprisonment because
the Guidelines range established by his total offense level and
criminal history category was lower than the statutory mandatory
minimum

applicable

to

his

offense.

See

21

U.S.C.

§§ 841(b)(1)(B), 851 (2012); USSG § 5G1.1(b); USSG ch. 5, pt. A
(sentencing

table).

Amendment

782

did

not

lower

Griffiths’

mandatory minimum sentence, and his Guidelines range remains 120
months.
Cir.

See United States v. Black, 737 F.3d 280, 286-87 (4th

2013).

Because

Griffiths

is

ineligible

for

a

sentence

reduction under § 3582(c)(2), we find no abuse of discretion in
the court’s denial of Griffiths’ motion.

See United States v.

Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).
2

Appeal: 15-7808

Doc: 9

Filed: 01/20/2016

Accordingly,
dispense

with

contentions

are

we

oral

affirm

the

argument

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3