US v. Rafael Cee-Erwin Solomon

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00203-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999786868]. Mailed to: Rafael Cee-Erwin Solomon FCI MCDOWELL FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 1009 Welch, WV 24801. [16-6009]

Appeal: 16-6009

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RAFAEL CEE-ERWIN SOLOMON, a/k/a J, a/k/a Rip,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00203-1)

Submitted:

March 29, 2016

Decided:

April 1, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rafael Cee-Erwin Solomon, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Gregory
McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6009

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rafael Cee-Erwin Solomon appeals the denial of his motion
for

a

sentence

U.S.C.

§

reduction

3582(c)(2)

under

(2012).

Amendment

“We

review

782
de

pursuant
novo

a

to

18

district

court’s ruling on the scope of its legal authority under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).”
256 (4th Cir. 2015).

United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 253,
Solomon argues that United States v. Munn,

595 F.3d 183, 192 (4th Cir. 2010) authorizes the modification of
a career offender’s sentence where, as in his case, a downward
variance was granted.
considered

an

But even if our holding in Munn, which

overrepresentation

departure,

could

encompass

a

downward variance, the Sentencing Commission abrogated Munn by
defining “applicable guideline range” as “the guideline range
that

corresponds

to

the

offense

level

and

criminal

history

category determined . . . before consideration of any departure
provision . . . or any variance.”

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual App. C, Amend. 759 (2011); see USSG § 1B1.10 cmt.n.1(A).
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.
Va.

Nov.

United States v. Solomon, No. 3:11-cr-00203-1 (S.D.W.
25,

2015;

Dec.

14,

2015).

We

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 16-6009

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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

AFFIRMED

3