United States v. Larry Frazier

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 20, 2018
Docket18-6828
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Larry Frazier (United States v. Larry Frazier) 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. Larry Frazier, (4th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6828

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LARRY DUNLAP FRAZIER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00087-1)

Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 20, 2018

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Dunlap Frazier, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Larry Dunlap Frazier appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a

sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and Amendment 782 to the

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. “We review a district court’s decision to reduce a

sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its ruling as to the scope of its

legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.” United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434,

437 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that the court did

not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. At bottom, Frazier’s Sentencing

Guidelines range remains unchanged after application of the retroactive drug

amendments because Frazier qualified for sentencing as a career offender. * Accordingly,

we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Frazier, No. 3:06-cr-00087-1

(W.D.N.C. June 22, 2018). 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

* Frazier’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018), is misplaced. Unlike in Hughes, Frazier’s plea agreement did not include a sentencing stipulation pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. William Muldrow
844 F.3d 434 (Fourth Circuit, 2016)
Hughes v. United States
584 U.S. 675 (Supreme Court, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Larry Frazier, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-larry-frazier-ca4-2018.