United States v. Applewhite

635 F. App'x 93
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 2, 2016
DocketNo. 15-7913
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
United States v. Applewhite, 635 F. App'x 93 (4th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

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

Melendez v. United States
518 U.S. 120 (Supreme Court, 1996)
United States v. Richard Daniel Allen
450 F.3d 565 (Fourth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Goodwyn
596 F.3d 233 (Fourth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
635 F. App'x 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-applewhite-ca4-2016.