United States v. Darnell Dunn

624 F. App'x 136

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 18, 2015
• Docket: 15-7494
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darnell Michael Dunn appeals the district court’s orders granting his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)(2012) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Because the Government’s substantial assistance motion was based on U.S.. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 and not 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2012), the district court lacked authority to reduce Dunn’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, as the district court correctly notedi it was without authority to rule on Dunn’s motion for reconsideration. 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.