United States v. Pabellon

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Pabellon

224 F. App'x 314

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 2007

Docket05-7912

StatusUnpublished

This text of 224 F. App'x 314 (United States v. Pabellon) 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. Pabellon, 224 F. App'x 314 (4th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Sonji Prince Pabellón appeals the district court’s text orders denying her motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West 2000 & Supp.2006) and her motion for reconsideration. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Pabellón argues that the district court violated her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by rendering oral orders or “text orders” rather than issuing an opinion and explaining why her motions were denied. Based on our review of the record, we find no evidence that Pabellón was prejudiced by the district court’s decision to enter a text order and therefore find no Fifth Amendment violation. Cf. Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 281-82 (4th Cir.2004).

We also uphold the denial of Pabellon’s motion for modification of sentence. Pabellón appears to base her motion on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and argues that the *315 Supreme Court has lowered the sentencing range applicable to her case. This argument has been squarely rejected by several of our sister circuits. See Carrington v. United States, 470 F.3d 920, 923 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Rodriguez-Pena, 470 F.3d 431, 433 (1st Cir.2006); United States v. Price, 438 F.3d 1005, 1007 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2365, 165 L.Ed.2d 289 (2006); United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 1643, 164 L.Ed.2d 351 (2006).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders denying Pabellon’s motions for modification of sentence and her motion for reconsideration. 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.

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

PER CURIAM:

Sonji Prince Pabellón appeals the district court’s text orders denying her motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West 2000 & Supp.2006) and her motion for reconsideration. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Pabellón argues that the district court violated her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by rendering oral orders or “text orders” rather than issuing an opinion and explaining why her motions were denied. Based on our review of the record, we find no evidence that Pabellón was prejudiced by the district court’s decision to enter a text order and therefore find no Fifth Amendment violation. Cf. Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 281-82 (4th Cir.2004).

We also uphold the denial of Pabellon’s motion for modification of sentence. Pabellón appears to base her motion on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and argues that the *315 Supreme Court has lowered the sentencing range applicable to her case. This argument has been squarely rejected by several of our sister circuits. See Carrington v. United States, 470 F.3d 920, 923 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Rodriguez-Pena, 470 F.3d 431, 433 (1st Cir.2006); United States v. Price, 438 F.3d 1005, 1007 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2365, 165 L.Ed.2d 289 (2006); United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 1643, 164 L.Ed.2d 351 (2006).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders denying Pabellon’s motions for modification of sentence and her motion for reconsideration. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 F. App'x 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-pabellon-ca4-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack