United States v. Black
This text of United States v. Black (United States v. Black) 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
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6546
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RODERICK BLACK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-15)
Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: July 2, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roderick Black, Appellant Pro Se. Frank DeArmon Whitney, United States Attorney, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Roderick Black appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice Black’s motion for a reduction in
sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000). Black contends that he
is entitled to a reduction in sentence based upon Amendments 505
and 516 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced
the upper limit of the Drug Quantity Table and became effective
November 1, 1995. This claim was raised and rejected in Black’s
earlier § 3582 motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order.* We 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
* The district court construed Black’s § 3582(c) motion as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed it without prejudice on the ground that it was successive. To the extent that Black’s motion could be construed as a § 2255 motion, relief would not be warranted because it would be successive.
- 2 -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Black, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-black-ca4-2004.