US v. Walter Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00590-CMC-11 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999832815]. Mailed to: Walter Brown. [15-7901]

Appeal: 15-7901

Doc: 5

Filed: 05/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7901

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WALTER G. BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00590-CMC-11)

Submitted:

May 16, 2016

Decided:

May 25, 2016

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter G. Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Julius Ness Richardson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7901

Doc: 5

Filed: 05/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Walter G. Brown appeals the district court’s order denying
his

motion

for

a

sentence

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012).

reduction

pursuant

to

18

U.S.C.

Generally, we review an order denying a

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion.

See United States

v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).

We review de novo,

however, a district court’s determination of the scope of its
authority under § 3582(c)(2).

United States v. Williams, 808

F.3d 253, 256 (4th Cir. 2015).
record

and

district
authority

relevant

court
to

did

grant

legal
not

Based on our review of the

authorities,

err

Brown’s

in

we

conclude

motion

determining
for

a

that

sentence

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

that
it

the

lacked

reduction.
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