US v. Megan White

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:05-cr-01127-TLW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999930677]. Mailed to: Megan Terrance Ramon White. [16-6231]

Appeal: 16-6231

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6231

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MEGAN TERRANCE RAMON WHITE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:05-cr-01127-TLW-1)

Submitted:

September 13, 2016

Decided:

September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Megan Terrance Ramon White, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley
Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6231

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Megan

Terrance

order denying

his

Ramon
motion

U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012).

White
for

appeals

reduction

the
of

district
sentence

court’s
under

18

White seeks reduction of his sentence

pursuant to United States v. Hemingway, 734 F.3d 323 (4th Cir.
2013).

The relief White seeks is unavailable under § 3582(c).

See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 473 (4th Cir. 2004)
(noting that § 3582(c)(2) authorizes a “district court to reduce
the sentence imposed on a defendant who has been sentenced to a
term

of

imprisonment

based

on

a

sentencing

range

that

has

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o)”); see also United States v. Moreno, 421
F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that new case law
cannot form the basis for a § 3582(c)(2) motion).
we affirm the order of the district court.

Accordingly,

We deny White’s

motion to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as
unnecessary, given that White’s first § 2255 motion is still
pending

in

district

court.

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