United States v. Terry Dowdell

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Terry Dowdell

669 F. App'x 662

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 18, 2016

Docket16-6873

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 669 F. App'x 662 (United States v. Terry Dowdell) 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. Terry Dowdell, 669 F. App'x 662 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terry L. Dowdell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel the Bureau of Prisons to move for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C, § 3582(c)(1)(A) (2012). Although the district court treated Dowdell’s filing as a substantive § 3582 motion, we conclude that the court’s denial of relief nevertheless was proper. Courts may compel action from the Government “only if [it] owes [the movant] a clear nondiscretionary duty.” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 (1984). Federal law vests the Bureau of Prisons with discretion to seek a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (“[T]he court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, may reduce the term of imprisonment ... after considering the [relevant] factors....”); United States v. Ellis, 527 F.3d 203, 205 (1st Cir. 2008) (noting that consideration for sentencing relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A) is “a matter of discretion for the Bureau [of Prisons]”). We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of relief and deny as moot Dowdell’s motion to expedite.

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

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terry L. Dowdell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel the Bureau of Prisons to move for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C, § 3582(c)(1)(A) (2012). Although the district court treated Dowdell’s filing as a substantive § 3582 motion, we conclude that the court’s denial of relief nevertheless was proper. Courts may compel action from the Government “only if [it] owes [the movant] a clear nondiscretionary duty.” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 (1984). Federal law vests the Bureau of Prisons with discretion to seek a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (“[T]he court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, may reduce the term of imprisonment ... after considering the [relevant] factors....”); United States v. Ellis, 527 F.3d 203, 205 (1st Cir. 2008) (noting that consideration for sentencing relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A) is “a matter of discretion for the Bureau [of Prisons]”). We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of relief and deny as moot Dowdell’s motion to expedite.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

669 F. App'x 662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-terry-dowdell-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack