US v. Donnay Rikard, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to seal [999980653-2]. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-02063-JFA-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000155495]. Mailed to: Donnay James Rikard, Jr. [16-7602]

Appeal: 16-7602

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/14/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7602

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONNAY JAMES RIKARD, JR., a/k/a DJ,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:11-cr-02063-JFA-2)

Submitted: August 29, 2017

Decided: September 14, 2017

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donnay James Rikard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, James Hunter May, John
David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7602

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/14/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Donnay James Rikard, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions
for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), in which he requested a
sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.
A district court may reduce a prison term if a defendant’s Guidelines range has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission and the reduction is consistent
with applicable policy statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We review for abuse of
discretion a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and
review de novo a district court’s conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under that
provision. United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016).
Here, the district court did not err when it denied Rikard’s motions to reduce
sentence because he received the benefit of a variance at sentencing and his sentence for
his drug offense is less than the bottom of his amended Guidelines range. Accordingly, we
grant Rikard’s motion to seal and affirm the district court’s orders denying Rikard’s
§ 3582(c)(2) motions.

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