US v. Darnell Barne


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6984 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/24/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARNELL BARNES, a/k/a Imani, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?