Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter James BROWN, II, a/k/a J Chill, Defendant-Appellant.
Walter James Brown, II, appeals the district court's order denying his motions for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). In 2009, Brown pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006), and the district court sentenced him to 300 months’ imprisonment. Brown's first § 3582(c)(2) motion sought a reduction based on Amendment 750 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual app. C, amend. 750 (effective Nov. 1, 2011). His second motion sought an additional reduction under Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See USSG supp. to app. C, amend. 782 (effective Nov. 1, 2014). Both amendments apply retroactively, see USSG § 1B1.10, and combine to reduce Brown's advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment.
In denying Brown's § 3582(c)(2) motions, the district court applied a higher Sentencing Guidelines range of 324 to 405 months’ imprisonment. Although the district court's order was primarily based on the protection of the public, we find that the district court's reliance on an incorrect Guidelines range nevertheless represents an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016) (stating standard of review). We therefore vacate the district court's order and remand for consideration of Brown's § 3582(c)(2) motions using the proper Guidelines range. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
PER CURIAM:
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-6549
Decided: December 03, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)