US v. Rudolph Chamblee, No. 08-6775 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6775 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RUDOLPH ALI CHAMBLEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:96-cr-00140-jcc-1) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: December 4, 2008 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rudolph Ali Chamblee, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rudolph Ali Chamblee appeals from the district court s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of his sentence based Sentencing Guidelines. upon Amendments 706 and 711 to the The district court denied the motion on the grounds that (1) the court lacked jurisdiction to further reduce the sentence which had already been reduced under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) for Chamblee s substantial assistance and (2) the court had already considered the substance of the Amendments when granting the Rule 35 motion. Without further analysis of the district court s holding, we conclude that application of the amendments would not change Chamblee s pre-departure offense level or Guidelines range. under § 3582 was not Accordingly, a reduction in sentence appropriate. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s. (2007 & Supp. 2008). We therefore affirm the district court s denial of Chamblee s motion for motions for reduction of appointment his of sentence. counsel and We deny Chamblee s reconsideration. We grant his motion to amend his informal brief. We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.