US v. Daryle McNeill

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:06-cr-00210-F-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999975643]. Mailed to: D. McNeill. [16-7080]

Appeal: 16-7080

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7080

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARYLE LAMONT MCNEILL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00210-F-1)

Submitted:

November 22, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

November 28, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daryle Lamont McNeill, Appellant Pro Se.
Jennifer P. MayParker,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7080

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Daryle Lamont McNeill appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
reduction

pursuant

to

Amendment

794

to

the

Sentencing

Guidelines.

We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of

discretion.

See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th

Cir.

(providing

2010)

district

court

defendant

who

may
has

standard).

modify
been

the

Under

term

of

§ 3582(c)(2),
imprisonment

sentenced . . . based

on

a

the

“of

a

sentencing

range that has subsequently been lowered,” if the amendment is
listed in the Guidelines as retroactively applicable.
§ 3582(c)(2);
(2016).

see

U.S.

Section

Sentencing

1B1.10(d)

of

Guidelines
the

18 U.S.C.

Manual

Guidelines

§ 1B1.10

lists

the

amendments that receive retroactive application, and this list
does not include Amendment 794.

Therefore, Amendment 794 cannot

be given retroactive effect in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding.

See

United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 249 n.2 (4th Cir. 2009);
United States v. McHan, 386 F.3d 620, 622 (4th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly,
dispense

with

contentions

are

we

oral

affirm

the

argument

adequately

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
2