United States v. Applewhite
This text of 635 F. App'x 93 (United States v. Applewhite) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Torrence Devon Applewhite appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The district court lacked authority to reduce Applewhite’s sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum. Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120, 126-27, 116 S.Ct. 2057, 135 L.Ed.2d 427 (1996); United States v. Allen, 450 F.3d 565, 568-70 (4th Cir.2006). Further, the district court was [94]*94without authority to rule on Applewhite’s motion for reconsideration. United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir.2010).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
635 F. App'x 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-applewhite-ca4-2016.