US v. Bricelyn Russell, No. 08-7026 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7026 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. BRICELYN MARCEL RUSSELL, Defendant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-00220-RBS-1) Submitted: March 31, 2009 Decided: April 15, 2009 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bricelyn Marcel Russell, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Bricelyn Marcel Russell seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). Russell was originally sentenced at the bottom of his guideline range to 360 months in prison. district court subsequently granted the Government s The motions under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) and reduced Russell s sentence to 180 months. In denying Russell s § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court determined that his amended guideline range under the crack cocaine amendments was 292 to 365 months imprisonment; noted the court had already reduced his sentence to 180 months; and denied his motion for a further reduction. On appeal, Russell challenges reasoning for denying his motion. the district court s Because we conclude that the district court lacked authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce Russell s term of imprisonment to a term that was less than the bottom of the amended guideline range, we affirm. See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 250, 252 (4th Cir. 2009). We 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
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.
