US v. Julius Adair Wiley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00048-CCE-5,1:16-cv-01252-CCE-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000089120]. Mailed to: Julius Adair Wiley. [17-6017]

Appeal: 17-6017

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/26/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JULIUS ADAIR WILEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00048-CCE-5; 1:16-cv01252-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julius Adair Wiley, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Robert Michael Hamilton,
Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6017

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/26/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Julius Adair Wiley appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge, construing his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a
sentence reduction as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing that motion as
second or successive. Although the district court should not have construed Wiley’s
motion as one arising under § 2255, we nevertheless agree with the court’s alternative
reasoning that Wiley is not entitled to relief under § 3582(c)(2) because the Sentencing
Commission has not authorized resentencing under Amendment 794 to the Sentencing
Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a)(1), (d) (2016); United
States v. McHan, 386 F.3d 620, 622 (4th Cir. 2004). We therefore affirm the denial of
relief on that basis.

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