Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
08-50180•United States of America v. RAYMOND SHANNON, AKA Stuff
08-50180Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit05.04.2010
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
AK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND SHANNON, AKA Stuff
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-50180
D.C. No. 2:99-cr-01199
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Shannon appeals from the district court’s order denying his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
APR 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
AK/Research 08-50180 2
Shannon contends that Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines, retroactively amending U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 with respect to offenses
involving crack cocaine, authorizes the district court to resentence him. The
district court did not err by concluding that it lacked jurisdiction pursuant to
§ 3582(c)(2) to modify Shannon’s sentence, as he would have been subject to the
same sentencing range had Amendment 706 been in place at the time he was
sentenced. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (2000) (providing that the career offender base
offense level applies where it is greater than the applicable base offense level under
§ 2D1.1). Thus, Shannon’s “sentence is not ‘based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,’ as required by
§ 3582(c)(2).” See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 2009)
(quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)); see also United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728,
731 (9th Cir. 2009).
Shannon’s motion to expedite this appeal for oral argument is denied.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.