US v. Darnell Barne

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:10-cr-00074-RGD-DEM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000179269]. Mailed to: Darnell Barnes. [17-6984]

Appeal: 17-6984

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/24/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6984

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARNELL BARNES, a/k/a Imani,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:10-cr-00074-RGD-DEM1)

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 24, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darnell Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney,
Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6984

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/24/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Darnell Barnes appeals the district court’s orders denying his letter motions asking
that his sentence be reduced under Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We
have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Muldrow,
844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016) (providing standard). A district court may modify the
term of imprisonment “of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based on a sentencing
range that has subsequently been lowered[,]” if the amendment is listed in the Guidelines
as retroactively applicable.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012); U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a)(1), (d), p.s. (2016). Amendment 794 is not so listed.
The district court therefore did not err in denying Barnes the relief he sought. See United
States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 250-52 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. McHan, 386
F.3d 620, 622-23 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. See
United States v. Barnes, No. 4:10-cr-00074-RGD-DEM-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 8, 2017 & Mar.
27, 2017). 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