United States v. Bernard Bostic

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Bernard Bostic

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 16, 2024

Docket24-6469

StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Bernard Bostic (United States v. Bernard Bostic) 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. Bernard Bostic, (4th Cir. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6469 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6469

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BERNARD BOSTIC,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (4:08-cr-00060-JD-1)

Submitted: September 12, 2024 Decided: September 16, 2024

Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Bostic, Appellant Pro Se. Michael G. Shedd, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6469 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Bostic appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Part A of Amendment 821 to the Sentencing

Guidelines. Upon review of the record—particularly the arguments made by Bostic’s

counsel and in the Government’s response in opposition—we discern no abuse of the

court’s considerable discretion in the denial of Bostic’s motion. See United States v.

Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013) (providing standard of review); see also United

States v. Martin, 916 F.3d 389, 398 (4th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that “[t]here is no right to

a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2)”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

order. United States v. Bostic, No. 4:08-cr-00060-JD-1 (D.S.C. Apr. 22, 2024). We deny

Bostic’s motion to appoint counsel. 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