United States Fourth Circuit

District court's denial of defendant's motion for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court misinterpreted the limits of its authority under section 3582(c)(2) in denying defendant's motion for a reduced sentence; and 2) defendant's career offender designation does not bar a section 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based on Amendment 706 if (i) the sentencing court granted an Overrepresentation Departure from the career offender guideline range, and (ii) the court relied on the Crack Guidelines in calculating the extent of the departure.

Appellate Information

• Argued 12/03/2009
• Decided 02/17/2010
• Published 02/17/2010

Judges

• Before KING, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Fourth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:Daniel Micah Blau, Robert H. Hale, Jr. & Associates, Attorneys at Law, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Robert H. Hale, Jr., Robert H. Hale, Jr. & Associates, Attorneys at Law, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.