US v. Julius Adair Wiley
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Julius Adair Wiley. [17-6017]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
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.
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?