United States v. Berry

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 20, 2009
Docket08-6910
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Berry (United States v. Berry) 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. Berry, (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6910

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CALVIN LEWIS BERRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00019-JPB-DJJ-l)

Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 20, 2009

Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Joseph Kornbrath, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Calvin Lewis Berry appeals the district court’s order

granting in part and denying in part his motion for modification

of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Berry

received the full sentence reduction available under Amendment

706 to the sentencing guidelines. Berry’s contentions that the

court could have considered a sentence below the amended

guideline range or that he was entitled to a full sentencing

hearing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), are

foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d

247 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the

district court. We deny Berry’s motion for appointment of

counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the 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

United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Dunphy
551 F.3d 247 (Fourth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Berry, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-berry-ca4-2009.