The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
09-7496•United States of America v. Anthony Lewis Glenn
09-7496Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 11, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7496
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY LEWIS GLENN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:98-cr-00023-F-1)
Submitted: April 27, 2010 Decided: May 11, 2010
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Lewis Glenn, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes,
Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Lewis Glenn appeals from the district court’s
order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for a sentence
reduction based upon the crack cocaine amendments to the
Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, Glenn asserts that, given the
changes in law since he was originally sentenced, the court
should have recalculated his Guidelines range without certain
enhancements. However, “proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) do not
constitute a full resentencing of the defendant. . . . Rather,
§ 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 are narrow provisions that
allow a limited reduction of sentence by the amount specified in
an amendment, while prohibiting a complete reevaluation.”
United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 251-52 (4th Cir.)
(internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct.
2401 (2009). In addition, the district court may only consider
the effect of the retroactive amendment, not any other
sentencing or Guidelines issues. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 1B1.10, p.s., comment. (n.2) (2009). Accordingly, we
affirm. We deny Glenn’s motion for appointment of counsel and
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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.