US v. David Andrea Jenkin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999940192-3]; denying Motion to compel [999953696-2] Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00513-JFA-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000042454]. Mailed to: David Andrea Jenkins FCI ENGLEWOOD FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 9595 West Quincy Avenue Littleton, CO 80123-0000. [16-7197]

Appeal: 16-7197

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/15/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7197

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID ANDREA JENKINS, a/k/a Arma G, a/k/a Dread,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00513-JFA-1)

Submitted:

February 28, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge,
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Decided:

WILKINSON,

March 15, 2017

Circuit

Judge,

and

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Andrea Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Stanley D. Ragsdale,
John David Rowell, William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7197

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/15/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David

Andrea

Jenkins

appeals

both

the

district

court’s

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a
sentence reduction under Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782 and
its

order

denying

Jenkins’

motion

for

reconsideration.

We

review de novo a district court’s ruling on the scope of its
authority under § 3582(c)(2).

United States v. Muldrow, 844

F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court properly determined that it lacked authority to
grant a sentence reduction, as Jenkins’ sentence was based on
his

Fed

R.

Guidelines
Commission.

Crim.
range

P.

11(c)(1)(C)

subsequently

plea

agreement

lowered

by

the

and

not

a

Sentencing

See Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 538-39

(2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring); United States v. Brown, 653
F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2011); accord United States v. Williams,
811 F.3d 621, 623-25 (4th Cir. 2016) (applying Freeman to direct
appeal

of

reversible

Rule
error

11(c)(1)(C)
in

the

sentence).

district

motion for reconsideration.

Further,

court’s

denial

we

find

no

of

Jenkins’

See United States v. Goodwyn, 596

F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.

We

deny Jenkins’ motions for appointment of counsel and to compel
the

disclosure

of

court

documents.
2

We

dispense

with

oral

Appeal: 16-7197

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/15/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3