United States v. Stephen Fritz

621 F. App'x 196
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 22, 2015·No. 15-6729·Unpublished·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Alexander Fritz appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motions for a sentence reduction. We, generally review an order granting or denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir.2004). We review de novo, however, a district court’s determination of the scope of its authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 250 (4th Cir.2009). Here, the district court correctly concluded that Fritz was not eligible for a sentence reduction; because Fritz was sentenced as a career offender, Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the offense levels applicable to drug offenses, did not have the effect of lowering his applicable Guidelines range. We therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

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

United States v. Stephen Fritz, 621 F. App'x 196 (4th Cir. 2015).

621 F. App'x 196 (United States v. Stephen Fritz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Quintanilla
868 F.3d 315 (Fifth Circuit, 2017)