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)
12-7034•United States of America v. Keiron Wayne Bryant
12-7034Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 26, 2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7034
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEIRON WAYNE BRYANT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District
Judge. (2:05-cr-00082-AWA-JEB-1)
Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keiron Wayne Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Keiron Wayne Bryant appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion to reduce his
sentence pursuant to Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (2010). We have reviewed the record and
conclude the district court properly found it lacked the
authority to reduce Bryant’s 120-month sentence, which was the
statutory mandatory minimum. See United States v. Munn, 595
F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A] defendant who was convicted
of a crack offense but sentenced pursuant to a mandatory
statutory minimum sentence is ineligible for a reduction under
§ 3582(c)(2).”). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. See United States v. Bryant, No. 2:05-
cr-00082-AWA-JEB-1 (E.D. Va. May 30, 2012). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.