US v. Demaine Diwan Benjamin
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:07-cr-01427-TLW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Demaine Diwan Benjamin. [17-6480]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
DEMAINE DIWAN BENJAMIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:07-cr-01427-TLW-1)
Submitted: July 20, 2017
Decided: July 25, 2017
Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Demaine Diwan Benjamin, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Demaine Diwan Benjamin appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his
motion for reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and denying
his motion for reconsideration. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. See United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016) (providing
standard). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
Although a district court lacks authority to reconsider a ruling on a § 3582(c)(2)
motion, “this prohibition [is] non-jurisdictional, and thus waived when the government
fail[s] to assert it below.” United States v. May, 855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017). Here,
“[b]ecause the government failed to raise this non-jurisdictional limitation below, it is
waived on appeal.” Id. at 275. We therefore analyze Benjamin’s § 3582(c)(2) motion
and motion for reconsideration together.
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?