United States v. Stephen Fritz
This text of 621 F. App'x 196 (United States v. Stephen Fritz) 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.
Opinion
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
621 F. App'x 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-stephen-fritz-ca4-2015.