US v. Dwayne Smith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:12-cr-00171-RAJ-DEM-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999959009]. Mailed to: Dwayne Smith. [16-6173]

Appeal: 16-6173

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6173

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DWAYNE SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:12-cr-00171-RAJ-DEM-1)

Submitted:

September 20, 2016

Decided:

November 1, 2016

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwayne Smith, Appellant
Assistant
United
States
Appellee.

Pro Se.
Attorney,

Darryl James Mitchell,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6173

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Smith appeals district court’s order denying relief
on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion under Amendment 782
of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the Guidelines
range for various drug offenses.

We vacate the district court’s

order and remand for further proceedings.
We review de novo a district court’s ruling as to the scope
of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2).
Williams,

808

F.3d

253,

256

(4th

Cir.

United States v.

2015).

Under

U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), p.s. (2015), a
“court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term
that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range
determined [through application of the Sentencing Amendment].”
We conclude that the district court erred in holding that
it did not have the discretion to reduce Smith’s sentence below
the

statutory

minimum.

Our

decision

in

United

States v.

Williams, 808 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2015), which abrogated United
States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2009), and which controls
the outcome of this case, had been issued only a month before
the district court’s order.

As stated in Williams, because this

case implicates USSG § 1B1.10(c), p.s., the district court was
required to consider Smith’s new Guidelines range.

Thus, the

district

have

court

erred

in

ruling
2

that

it

did

not

the

Appeal: 16-6173

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

authority to grant Smith a sentence reduction, and we remand to
allow

the

district

court

to

exercise

its

discretion

on

this

issue.
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court
and

remand

for

further

proceedings.

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.
VACATED AND REMANDED

3