US v. Antione Boyce


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:07-cr-00383-CCB-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000055266]. Mailed to: Antione Boyce. [17-6051]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6051 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/04/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6051 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTIONE BOYCE, a/k/a Dallas, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00383-CCB-3) Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 4, 2017 Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antione Boyce, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6051 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/04/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Antione Boyce appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Although Amendment 782 to the Guidelines lowered offense levels applicable to drug offenses by two levels and is retroactively applicable, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(d), p.s. (2016); USSG app. C, amend. 782, it “does not have the effect of lowering [Boyce’s] applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision.” USSG § 1B1.10, p.s., cmt. n.1(A). Accordingly, Boyce was not entitled to a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), and the district court thus did not reversibly err in denying Boyce’s motion. See USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s.; United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010), abrogation on other grounds recognized in United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 438-42 (4th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial order. United States v. Boyce, No. 1:07-cr-00383-CCB-3 (D. Md. Dec. 13, 2016). 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

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?