United States v. Satterfield

443 F. App'x 817
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 23, 2011
DocketNo. 11-6807
StatusPublished

This text of 443 F. App'x 817 (United States v. Satterfield) 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. Satterfield, 443 F. App'x 817 (4th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Frederick Satterfield appeals from the district court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006), and reducing his sentence from 190 months to 152 months. He contends that the court should have also ordered that his sentence run concurrent to his undischarged state sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. The district court was without authority to modify that portion of the sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006); see also, Dillon v. United States, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2694, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). We therefore affirm. 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

Related

Dillon v. United States
560 U.S. 817 (Supreme Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
443 F. App'x 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-satterfield-ca4-2011.