US v. David Andrea Jenkin


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7197 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/15/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7197 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID ANDREA JENKINS, a/k/a Arma G, a/k/a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 Decided: WILKINSON, March 15, 2017 Circuit Judge, and Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?